A question for the referees

[cockerkneeboy]

I have a question regarding the laws of the game

I was watching a game on Saturday where a penalty was awarded for a foul inside the penalty area

The Referee who was very young gave the spot kick which was taken and scored

When the penalty was taken the goalkeeper was about 4 or 5 yards of his line although as the ball went past him into the net this did not seem to matter at the time, The Referee then blew his whistle and pointed to the centre circle indicating that the goal was ok and was legal, As the Referee turned to walk back to the centre circle he was surrounded by 4 or 5 players from the opposing side who claimed that there was an encroachment into the area by one of the members of the team taking the penalty

His decision after that is a little confusing, Having given the goal it was thought that if there was an encroachment then he did not see it because he would have asked for the penalty to be re taken there and then so it was apparent that he did not see what had happened, He also did not spot that the goalkeeper was 4 or 5 yards off of his line otherwise he would have said so which is why I find his next decision somewhat of a joke

He decided that the penalty should be re taken which it was and would you believe it the keeper saved the spot kick

Now the question I am asking is by the letter of the law as the Referee had given the goal and had obviously not seen what had supposedly happened should the goal have stood, Is it right that after blowing his whistle and pointing to the centre circle to say the goal was good that he should be allowed to change his mind just because he was told about something from the defending team which he obviously did not see?

[Dave Deacon]

which he obviously did not see

Don't the refs say that "if I didn't see it, I can't give it!"

Presumably this game you mention didn't have official assistants running the line?

[bighairydave]

In the Laws of the Game the referee CAN change their decision, if play has yet to be restarted, if something comes to their attention.

But it seems in this case that perhaps the referee may not have seen the alleged encroachment. The encroachment by the goal-keeper does not matter if a goal is scored, as is the case if a defender encroaches. Retakes when a goal is scored should only take place if an attacker OR an attacker and a defender both encroach.

[Anita]

In the Laws of the Game the referee CAN change their decision, if play has yet to be restarted, if something comes to their attention.

But it seems in this case that perhaps the referee may not have seen the alleged encroachment. The encroachment by the goal-keeper does not matter if a goal is scored, as is the case if a defender encroaches. Retakes when a goal is scored should only take place if an attacker OR an attacker and a defender both encroach.

yeah, thats what i was gonna say untill i got carried away with something else :rolleyes:

[cockerkneeboy]

which he obviously did not see

Don't the refs say that "if I didn't see it, I can't give it!"

Presumably this game you mention didn't have official assistants running the line?

No Dave the game did not have official assistants running the line

Don’t get me wrong here im not about to go naming and shaming the referee involved because overall he had a decent enough game, I know that there is a shortage of referees in Cornwall and im also aware of what a good job they do so im not getting on about the chap involved but I only asked the question because I did not know what the law states in a situation like this

It was obvious that he did not see the encroachment and it was only bought to his attention by the opposing team, not from any person running the line and it seemed to me that because the opposing team surrounded the referee and complained that he may well have been intimidated by them

[Argyle Fan]

I would say the referee initially allowed the goal on the basis that only the goalkeeper had infringed the Laws of the Game but then correctly ordered a retake when he was made aware that an attacker had also infringed.

But whether or not he should have accepted that information from the defending side is a question for our referreeing friends. This does open a bit of a potential loophole.

This is an extract from Law 14:

If the referee gives the signal for a penalty kick to be taken

and, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs:

the player taking the penalty kick infringes the Laws of the Game:

• the referee allows the kick to be taken

• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken

• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is

restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place

where the infringement occurred

the goalkeeper infringes the Laws of the Game:

• the referee allows the kick to be taken

• if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded

• if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken

a team-mate of the player taking the kick infringes the Laws of the Game:

• the referee allows the kick to be taken

• if the ball enters the goal, the kick is retaken

• if the ball does not enter the goal, the referee stops play and the match is

restarted with an indirect free kick to the defending team from the place

where the infringement occurred

a team-mate of the goalkeeper infringes the Laws of the Game:

• the referee allows the kick to be taken

• if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded

• if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken

a player of both the defending team and the attacking team infringe the Laws

of the Game:

• the kick is retaken

[St Darren]

If the ball goes in the back of the net what difference does encroachment make from anyone!! stupid rule

[skyblueref]

If the ball goes in the back of the net what difference does encroachment make from anyone!! stupid rule

I think this is a case where law 18 should be applied.

[cockerkneeboy]

In the Laws of the Game the referee CAN change their decision, if play has yet to be restarted, if something comes to their attention.

But it seems in this case that perhaps the referee may not have seen the alleged encroachment. The encroachment by the goal-keeper does not matter if a goal is scored, as is the case if a defender encroaches. Retakes when a goal is scored should only take place if an attacker OR an attacker and a defender both encroach.

So if the encroachment by the goalkeeper does not matter then why is it that the encroachment by a player does?

Surely that also does not matter bearing in mind the referee did not see it?

[cockerkneeboy]

But whether or not he should have accepted that information from the defending side is a question for our referreeing friends. This does open a bit of a potential loophole.

Catch 22 then

I understand that in a game where there are 3 match officials this would not happen (You would have thought) but in a game where there is only one referee and no linesmen then surely there has to be a bit of common sense used?

[cockerkneeboy]

I think this is a case where law 18 should be applied.

Law 18? What is that then?

[skyblueref]

I think this is a case where law 18 should be applied.

Law 18? What is that then?

you just answered your own question. COMMON SENSE.

[bighairydave]

In the Laws of the Game the referee CAN change their decision, if play has yet to be restarted, if something comes to their attention.

But it seems in this case that perhaps the referee may not have seen the alleged encroachment. The encroachment by the goal-keeper does not matter if a goal is scored, as is the case if a defender encroaches. Retakes when a goal is scored should only take place if an attacker OR an attacker and a defender both encroach.

So if the encroachment by the goalkeeper does not matter then why is it that the encroachment by a player does?

Surely that also does not matter bearing in mind the referee did not see it?

Encroachment by the defender would not matter but as it is encroachment by the attacker it does matter according to the Laws of the Game.

[oldasitgets]

It's very simple, it's a form of the advantage rule. If the offender gains, it's cancelled. otherwise it stands.

If both teams offend, it's also cancelled - otherwise anarchy.

So, if keeper or defender offends, goal stands.

If attacker offends, retaken. And vice-versa.

What other system could possibly work?

[Tynan's_Dad]

I don't understand why the goalkeeper must stay on the line anyway. For all other freekicks the opposition must be 10yards away from the ball. In the case on a penalty they spot is 12 yards away. Why do they not stick with this rule so that the keeper is able to stand two yards from his line if he wishes? The advantage would still be with the kicker anyway.

[Tommy Matthews]

Stepping forward off your goal line allows the goalkeeper to narrow the angle and therefore make it easier to save.

[Martin Eddy]

Tynans dad the keeper has to stay on his line because the penalty is from 12 yards as stipulated in the laws of the game :c:

[El-hab]

I think i was at the same game i feel urged to correct ur mistake.

the ref gave a correctly awarded penalty whitch as u said was scored. Before the ref had time 2 act on the encroaching he clearly saw he was mobbed by players.

By the time the ref had carefully carmed down the unrully mob the other teams players were ready for kick off. it was unfortunate but he then had 2 hall them back to retake the pen.

the referee was trying to push the mob (who were arguing for a decision the ref was about 2 give)back when u mistaken-ly thought he was giving the goal. The keeper dived along the line but rolled forward giving the impression that he'd jumped forward.

The ref followed the laws and althought the incident was unfortunate it was handled correctly.

[St Darren]

On the same thread, can I ask the question,

Should Stuart Atwell be refereeing at any level above Sunday level?? he's clearly out of his depth at premier league level

[gillo10]

He would have such a lovely time refereing in the Sunday league Darren. No abuse from players, all decisions met with a gentlemans round of applause, lovely pot of tea and victoria sponge at half time and at full time he is greeted by scantily dressed maids who will promptly whisk him off to a roman bath and fan him with palm leaves while feeding him peeled grapes, arr the joys of Sunday League football! Never will he get treated like this on any Saturday!!

[B Manning]

St Darren it sounds like you have been reading Graham Poll`s definitive comments and those from a referee who yellow carded a player 3 times in one match. In fact in applying the LOAF Stuart Atwell was correct.

[St Darren]

not read it at all Mr Manning! are you Keith Hackett by any chance? cos you seem to defend every single referee that has ever pulled on a black shirt!!!

he's an awful referee, he should never have been allowed to ref again after the Reading v Watford Debacle, but he was on the FA fast track programme to get younger referee's. he could and possibly should have sent off Steven Gerrard, instead it took him an age to actually give a free kick. With regards to the Liverpool goal, he never had a clue what was going on, so to say he applied the letter of the law isn't right in my book!

Gillo, class comment about the Sunday league though!! although on Saturdays, we're down on bookings already this season!!

[gillo10]

Well, Im yet to play this season Darren so that could explain that one!

Got to agree with you here, he clearly wasnt looking at the incident therefore didnt see the beginning of play and therefore missing the incident. Why not just save tha hassle and bring play back. Mr Manning, are referees not taught to run backwards from the ball in these types of incidents, much like as a refs assistant, you never touch the ball even as it trickles past you just in case you miss an incident on the pitch? Try not to turn your back on play? Surely as a PROFESSIONAL he should be doing the basics, like sending off Gerrard for a blatant elbow. And Hansen tried to convince us he was "leading with the elbow not swinging it". The bloke barely jumped therefore had no reason to raise his elbow like that, must have been defending himself again!!

However, in the grand scheme of things he must referee around 40 games and he only makes around two major **** ups per season!

[B Manning]

He may not have seen it but he consulted his assistant ( who is an experienced qualified referee) and they deemed the free kick had been taken therefore the ball was in play and Torres was perfectly entitled to play the ball. In fact it was the players who cocked up. In fact I have a very similar incident where I awarded a free kick to a defender in his own half, he kicks the ball back to his keeper but makes a mess of the kick, luckily the opposition are trudging back to the halfway line and didn`t see that the ball would not reach the keeper who wasn`t watching either. so he runs after the ball and gives it a harder kick, now I stop the game and award a free kick to the other side because he touched the ball twice, now you can imagine who`s fault it was , mine, loads of excuses he hadn`t taken the kick, i should use common sense etc etc.