Question Number: 33849

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/21/2020

RE: Adult

mohammed Alharbi of medina, medina Saudi Arabia asks...

hello
in this video the ref said that in thats time it was not allowed to jump front of the goalie and because of that the goal was disallowed. Just want to know if this was the reason or there is something else disallowed the goal .
thanks for this great treasure .


the video from YouTube
https://youtu.be/dkM711HrJR4

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Mohammed,
Part of the problem here is that the video does not really show what is going on with the keeper and the white team forward as and just after the corner is taken. What we can say is that the referee is giving the signal for an indirect free kick which limits the number of offences that might have been given. An indirect free kick can be given for an offside offence but I can't see any suggestion of offside in the video. So the next most likely thing is, as ref McHugh says, that the referee has seen something that he judged to be an impeding offence.

If there was some impeding going on, it doesn't seem to be particularly obvious but again, the camera is following the corner kicker and then the ball, so it's difficult to be sure.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Mohammed
One of the difficulties in watching these videos is not seeing the total situation and under what Laws the decision was made.
I suspect here that the decision may have been for impeding as the player in front of the goalkeeper may have, in the opinion of the referee, moved into the way of the goalkeepers movement to the ball. The referee signals for an indirect free kick offence where the goalkeeper was located so every chance it was impeding.
To quote the Law ** Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponents path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.**
As I said it is difficult to see the complete situation and I think from what I have seen here is that it could be somewhat harsh yet I suspect that there was grounds for such a call and perhaps it was a blatant obstruction at the flight of the ball which made the goalkeeper change his mind in coming for the cross. That is not shown in the video.
Finally I like to show this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-lNODXuA6k&app=desktop
From what was shown on TV during the game it looked like a very harsh penalty award or to quote a comment from Referee Baharmast that the media said it was an *imaginary* penalty. Two days later it was shown that it was a clear penalty for an obvious shirt pull that the referee seen and called.
In your example and other such situations the positioning of the attacker can be to impede the goalkeeper only and perhaps that is what happened which is not shown on the video.