Question Number: 33260

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 4/20/2019

Petr of Prague, Czech Republic Czech Republic asks...

Hello,

my question is about preventing the goalkeeper from releasing ball and preventing quick free kick. In both cases opponent prevents the player (or goalkeeper), but fails to hit the ball. Player (or goalkeeper) completes the kick.

What is the procedure? (Stopping the game? Playing advantage? Do you give a yellow card?) Or is it not an offense?

Thank you very much!

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Petr
For an action to be called as an offence it has to have an impact on the opponent or the game.
If the action of the opponent does not prevent a quick free kick then play continues which is what the kicking team wants to do.
Same would apply to trying to prevent release by the goalkeeper. When it has no impact it is play on either through use of advantage or through no offence or through it being considered doubtful / trifling.
I watched a game recently where a player tried to impede a goalkeeper who was running out with the ball to throw it to a team mate. The action has no impact on the goalkeeper so the referee just ignored it.
A super strict approach could be to play advantage and if the referee really wanted he could go back to caution the player for the failed attempt.
Personally I would ignore it when it fails to impact on play. At the highest level you might see a player try to stop a quick free kick which results in the opponent managing to take the kick anyway. Referees in those instances just ignore it.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Petr,
we generally want the game to flow so we do try not to make stoppages that we deem as unnecessary. In the cases of an opponent trying to prevent free kicks or the opposing keeper releasing the ball , an attempt of misconduct can be ignored, especially if there is NO impact on the outcome or possible repercussions of an, after event. A referees' own understanding of the game and perception of the tolerance of the players is paramount to anticipating outcomes & to head off encounters . I remind all officials that even when we relax our match grip to see the fault but consider play on is preferable or advantageous , if we say or do nothing, considering it trifling or doubtful, it might not be FELT as inconsequential to the aggrieved player or the culprit intending on intimidation. A word to acknowledge you saw & disapprove or a CLEAR ADVANTAGE signal to show you saw and disapprove might make it not as necessary to backward glance over the shoulder. Admittedly if I am NOT stopping play to award an indfk there is little chance of a follow up caution at the next stoppage unless there is a follow up, dust up, between the parties involved.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Petr,
In the circumstances you describe, I would agree with my colleagues that any potential offence here is probably to be considered trivial and/or dubious. There is also the possibility of viewing it as an advantage call - depending on the exact scenario, the team against which the offence has been committed may be better off if play continues.

There was actually an example of the kind of thing you're talking about in yesterday's English Premier League game between Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur. After a corner, as the City keeper Ederson was attempting to punt the ball downfield, Spurs defender Davinson Sanchez clearly tried to prevent him releasing the ball. The kick however was successfully executed and referee Michael Oliver took no action.

Perhaps I'm biased as a former goalkeeper but this particular offence annoyed me. I saw it as being potentially very dangerous, because if a keeper's forceful swing of the leg for a long distance punt is blocked by an opponent, serous injury could occur to one or both players. So personally I would have at least considered cautioning Sanchez for this, even though some might see that as harsh.