For anyone that knows the rules

[1960maaan]

Can anyone explain this one to me? 
Straight Red for playing the ball twice?
Poor defender looks scared to death.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CcDXg8-jcCT/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

[Davefevs]

Can only assume the red card was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

[Robbored]

I have absolutely no idea! but then that often happens when I see referees make odd decisions.

[1960maaan]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Can only assume the red card was denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

Never thought of that. Still feels harsh but I can't think of anything else.

[cidercity1987]

Seems a pretty obvious red to me?

[A Horse With No Name]

Wtf was her mate doing though?

[Portland Bill]

55 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Seems a pretty obvious red to me?

Clearly a red, denying a clear goal scoring opportunity, I don’t understand why anyone would think otherwise. 

[MarcusX]

49 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Wtf was her mate doing though?

Looks like she thought the keeper was rolling the ball into position to take the kick from - not actually taking it.

Should have switched on quicker once she saw the attacker coming though

[The Journalist]

100% a straight red card because if the goalkeeper doesn’t illegally kick the ball away it’s a goal. Actually incredibly good refereeing to make quite a common sense decision from a very unusual scenario.

[Sleepy1968]

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-16---the-goal-kick

"If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded"

No mention of a caution or sending off being an option.

The latter part of the goal kick law then goes on to state:

"If a player enters the penalty area before the ball is in play and fouls or is fouled by an opponent, the goal kick is retaken and the offender may be cautioned or sent off depending on the offence."

(So it clearly does consider and state under when circumstances a sending off can be made under this part of the rules.)

So I would say that the referee got it wrong and any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Sleepy1968

[cidercity1987]

6 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-16---the-goal-kick

"If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded"

No mention of a caution or sending off being an option.

The latter part of the goal kick law then goes on to state:

"If a player enters the penalty area before the ball is in play and fouls or is fouled by an opponent, the goal kick is retaken and the offender may be cautioned or sent off depending on the offence."

(So it clearly does consider and state under when circumstances a sending off can be made under this part of the rules.)

So I would say that the referee got it wrong and any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

No idea what the actual written rules are and whether the referee was technically correct or not. Morally, pragmatically and in the spirit of fair play he was totally right

[Sleepy1968]

8 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

No idea what the actual written rules are and whether the referee was technically correct or not. Morally, pragmatically and in the spirit of fair play he was totally right

Did the goalie prevent a goal being scored? Yes? Would it be fair if she was sent off? Morally, yes. But the referee's job it to apply the laws of the game, and there is no offence against an opposition player under the rules. I wonder if we have the footage directly after this just to see whether the referee managed to restart the game correctly with an indirect free kick to the attacking team.

It was close to the most idiotic goal kick of all time though, but didn't beat one I took in 1987 leading to an easy goal for the opposition

[elhombrecito]

34 minutes ago, Sleepy1968 said:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-16---the-goal-kick

"If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded"

No mention of a caution or sending off being an option.

The latter part of the goal kick law then goes on to state:

"If a player enters the penalty area before the ball is in play and fouls or is fouled by an opponent, the goal kick is retaken and the offender may be cautioned or sent off depending on the offence."

(So it clearly does consider and state under when circumstances a sending off can be made under this part of the rules.)

So I would say that the referee got it wrong and any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

It's clearly covered by the section of the laws below (i.e. the attacker was heading towards goal, a clear goal scoring opportunity was prevented, and it was a free-kick offence). So 100% the correct decision by the referee.

[nickolas]

Sod this rule. I’d like someone to explain the rule to the **** behind me at home games who continually shouts for offsides from goalkicks.

Apparently im wrong though

[Sleepy1968]

3 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

It's clearly covered by the section of the laws below (i.e. the attacker was heading towards goal, a clear goal scoring opportunity was prevented, and it was a free-kick offence). So 100% the correct decision by the referee.

I'll get me coat.

[A Horse With No Name]

There was an interesting one in rhe Man City Liverpool game yesterday. A MC defender passed it square in the box to his other centre half who then deliberately left it for the keeper, who picked it up. The Liverpool crowd screamed for a free kick, but I assume it wasn't classed as a backpass simply because it wasn't intended to be, even though it was.

[MarcusX]

1 hour ago, The Horse With No Name said:

There was an interesting one in rhe Man City Liverpool game yesterday. A MC defender passed it square in the box to his other centre half who then deliberately left it for the keeper, who picked it up. The Liverpool crowd screamed for a free kick, but I assume it wasn't classed as a backpass simply because it wasn't intended to be, even though it was.

I think it has to be a deliberate pass TO the keeper.

There is also a rule about a deliberate trick to circumvent the pass back rule - eg you can’t chip it to yourself and head it back to the keeper, depends on the refs interpretation of what happened I guess

[REDOXO]

5 hours ago, Sleepy1968 said:

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-16---the-goal-kick

"If, after the ball is in play, the kicker touches the ball again before it has touched another player an indirect free kick is awarded"

No mention of a caution or sending off being an option.

The latter part of the goal kick law then goes on to state:

"If a player enters the penalty area before the ball is in play and fouls or is fouled by an opponent, the goal kick is retaken and the offender may be cautioned or sent off depending on the offence."

(So it clearly does consider and state under when circumstances a sending off can be made under this part of the rules.)

So I would say that the referee got it wrong and any suspension will be overturned on appeal.

It denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. However the player was sent off under the laws as below  not for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity…Rightly or wrongly!!

Sending-off offences include (but are not limited to):

• delaying the restart of play by the opposing team e.g. holding onto the ball, kicking the ball away, obstructing the movement of a player

Thus two offences were committed. The only possible argument at appeal is it a straight red or two yellows! (The club will appeal if the goalkeeper is banned for more than one match) which the referee report will highlight

However the referee should be commended it was the right decision and very quick thinking the ban is the only thing arguable  

 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by REDOXO

[MarcusX]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

It denied a clear goal scoring opportunity. However the player was sent off under the laws as below  not for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity…Rightly or wrongly!!

Sending-off offences include (but are not limited to):

• delaying the restart of play by the opposing team e.g. holding onto the ball, kicking the ball away, obstructing the movement of a player

Thus two offences were committed. The only possible argument at appeal is it a straight red or two yellows! (The club will appeal if the goalkeeper is banned for more than one match) which the referee report will highlight

However the referee should be commended it was the right decision and very quick thinking the ban is the only thing arguable  

 

 

How’d you come to that conclusion?

The ball was in play after the first touch

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

How’d you come to that conclusion?

The ball was in play after the first touch

He delayed the restart by deliberately kicking the ball twice and away. That was the point. 
 

So the offences committed as I said earlier…. plus unsportsmanlike behavior. The unsportsmanlike behavior was to stop a player from scoring….Thus the referee is right in a number of ways!

I don’t know you so am unaware of how you think this will be viewed by a disciplinary or other hearing, but when things like this pop up, which they do very occasionally, the spirit of the law will be applied. 

The spirit is that he acted in order to illegally stop a goal from being scored. The rest of any conversation is academic.
 

The occasional verbiage change pops up for these kind of things to the laws. 
 

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by REDOXO

[A Horse With No Name]

3 hours ago, MarcusX said:

I think it has to be a deliberate pass TO the keeper.

There is also a rule about a deliberate trick to circumvent the pass back rule - eg you can’t chip it to yourself and head it back to the keeper, depends on the refs interpretation of what happened I guess

So it also begs the question, can you pass it forwards to the keeper, to pick up, if you are further back than him at the time? Could you claim it wasn't technically a BACKpass?

[PHILINFRANCE]

1 hour ago, REDOXO said:

He delayed the restart by deliberately kicking the ball twice and away. That was the point. 
 

So the offences committed as I said earlier…. plus unsportsmanlike behavior. The unsportsmanlike behavior was to stop a player from scoring….Thus the referee is right in a number of ways!

I don’t know you so am unaware of how you think this will be viewed by a disciplinary or other hearing, but when things like this pop up, which they do very occasionally, the spirit of the law will be applied. 

The spirit is that he acted in order to illegally stop a goal from being scored. The rest of any conversation is academic.
 

The occasional verbiage change pops up for these kind of things to the laws. 
 

 

Hmmm.

Apart from the fact I think ‘He’ was actually a ‘She’, I assumed the red card was for stopping a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity.

The goalkeeper took a first touch by rolling it to her teammate, who, for some inexplicable reason, recoiled from the ball.

The opposing forward saw that the ball was in play and loose, so ran in to tap the ball in to the empty net.

 In order to prevent an almost certain goal, the goalkeeper played the ball again, two offences - playing the ball twice and the prevention of a goal scoring opportunity - and, quite rightly, was shown a straight red card.

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Hmmm.

Apart from the fact I think ‘He’ was actually a ‘She’, I assumed the red card was for stopping a clear and obvious goal scoring opportunity.

The goalkeeper took a first touch by rolling it to her teammate, who, for some inexplicable reason, recoiled from the ball.

The opposing forward saw that the ball was in play and loose, so ran in to tap the ball in to the empty net.

 In order to prevent an almost certain goal, the goalkeeper played the ball again, two offences - playing the ball twice and the prevention of a goal scoring opportunity - and, quite rightly, was shown a straight red card.

Exactly. See my other answers!  
 

Definitely the right decision and can be justified in a number of ways!

 

[TRL]

I think we can all see the keeper knows it's the correct decision, she goes mental at her team mate not the ref

[A Horse With No Name]

On 17/04/2022 at 00:15, MarcusX said:

Looks like she thought the keeper was rolling the ball into position to take the kick from - not actually taking it.

Should have switched on quicker once she saw the attacker coming though

The other thing is, is the ball actually in play when she kicks it away? Surely at a goal kick the ball has to leave the six yard box to be in play. Don't think this one does so she could indeed argue that she was placing it to take the kick.

[elhombrecito]

1 hour ago, The Horse With No Name said:

The other thing is, is the ball actually in play when she kicks it away? Surely at a goal kick the ball has to leave the six yard box to be in play. Don't think this one does so she could indeed argue that she was placing it to take the kick.

No, it just needs to be kicked, and clearly move.