You Call It

[watfly]

Not a law but an idea, should the ref reward the player with a PK when the player clearly missed the shot without contact from the keeper? Personally I have an issue with that. Let the players decide the result, not the ref. In this case, both players made a mistake, the keeper came out late and the attacker missed a fairly high percentage opportunity.

I also notice that some parents think if someone goes down because of contact that it should be an automatic foul. I don't think that should be the case.

This is not a cut and dried case. In real time, I think this is likely to be a PK call, but as RedCard said, regardless of the call one sideline is going to be very vocal about their displeasure with the call. Even if a PK I don't see any basis for a card. It was careless at worst and clearly not a DOGSO.

All in my layman's opinion.

 

[whatithink]

Not a law but an idea, should the ref reward the player with a PK when the player clearly missed the shot without contact from the keeper? Personally I have an issue with that. Let the players decide the result, not the ref. In this case, both players made a mistake, the keeper came out late and the attacker missed a fairly high percentage opportunity.

I also notice that some parents think if someone goes down because of contact that it should be an automatic foul. I don't think that should be the case.

This is not a cut and dried case. In real time, I think this is likely to be a PK call, but as RedCard said, regardless of the call one sideline is going to be very vocal about their displeasure with the call. Even if a PK I don't see any basis for a card. It was careless at worst and clearly not a DOGSO.

All in my layman's opinion.

Last man tackle/foul preventing a goal scoring opportunity is a card. GK gets a yellow as its a PK. If the GK did this outside the box it would be a red and free.

WRT

Not a law but an idea, should the ref reward the player with a PK when the player clearly missed the shot without contact from the keeper?

what if a player is purposely playing it past the GK to tap it in ... who can tell. Just because you think he shooting, doesn't mean that he is. The player won the ball and has a shot on an empty net if he gets the ball before it goes out of play. He's prevented from doing that because the GK takes him out.

 

[watfly]

Last man tackle/foul preventing a goal scoring opportunity is a card. GK gets a yellow as its a PK. If the GK did this outside the box it would be a red and free.

WRT
what if a player is purposely playing it past the GK to tap it in ... who can tell. Just because you think he shooting, doesn't mean that he is. The player won the ball and has a shot on an empty net if he gets the ball before it goes out of play. He's prevented from doing that because the GK takes him out.

That's a what if, not what happened in this situation. Otherwise I agree 100% with your scenario.

 

[notintheface]

I'm not sure "youth goalkeeper attempting to do his job and making a mistake" is dogso, but ymmv. It is a foul. It is inside the box. Penalty 100%.

 

[whatithink]

That's a what if, not what happened in this situation. Otherwise I agree 100% with your scenario.

How is this not what happened in this scenario? The GK was the last man, the ball was played past the GK, the GK took out the player.

 

[dad4]

How is this not what happened in this scenario? The GK was the last man, the ball was played past the GK, the GK took out the player.

How is it not what happened? Because the attacker had to use dangerous play in order to play the ball past the GK.

I am not convinced he even wins the ball without the face level kick near another player.

 

[whatithink]

How is it not what happened? Because the attacker had to use dangerous play in order to play the ball past the GK.

I am not convinced he even wins the ball without the face level kick near another player.

Its not a high kick though. If it's "dangerous", it's because the GK came sliding in late. When the player connects with the ball, the GK is at a least a foot away. The player is in control when he plays the ball, its not a wild kick, or a studs up lunge. He is immediately taken out.

The GK should never have committed. He should have stayed on his feet, having narrowed the angle. At that point, he probably gets a hand to the ball or has the ability to react after the player touches it to close him down or push him wide.

 

[watfly]

How is this not what happened in this scenario? The GK was the last man, the ball was played past the GK, the GK took out the player.

Even if his plan was to touch it past the keeper, his touch was way too strong (prior to contact) to catch up to the ball. My point is this just isn't cut or dried either way. This isn't 100% a foul. I could even question if the keeper was actually late for his challenge. The attacker had to leave his feet and arguably create a dangerous play to get off a panicked touch in time. Had the attacker not made this rushed and awkward touch the keeper's timing might of been perfect. Ultimately, both players took a risk, but I'm not sure one bears the burden of the outcome more than the other.

Too be perfectly honest, if my son is the attacker I'm probably adamant its a PK, if my son's a keeper (fortunately he is not) I'm probably just as adamant its a not a PK. However, I can't for the life of me see how this would be a DOGSO and a card, but reasonable minds can disagree.

 

[baldref]

Penalty. Yellow card. DOGSO would only be if the ball was playable after the tackle. It was not.

 

[dad4]

Its not a high kick though. If it's "dangerous", it's because the GK came sliding in late. When the player connects with the ball, the GK is at a least a foot away. The player is in control when he plays the ball, its not a wild kick, or a studs up lunge. He is immediately taken out.

The GK should never have committed. He should have stayed on his feet, having narrowed the angle. At that point, he probably gets a hand to the ball or has the ability to react after the player touches it to close him down or push him wide.

Thanks for the clarity of explanation. The “at least a foot away“ part is key. I ref youngers, and would never have thought that one foot represented a decent safety margin. The appropriate minimum distance for that move for them is definitely not 12 inches.

 

[watfly]

Penalty. Yellow card. DOGSO would only be if the ball was playable after the tackle. It was not.

Yellow, because you deemed the tackle reckless?

 

[baldref]

Yellow, because you deemed the tackle reckless?

Yes.

 

[baldref]

Yes.

And to be honest, it would help in game management.

 

[whatithink]

Even if his plan was to touch it past the keeper, his touch was way too strong (prior to contact) to catch up to the ball. My point is this just isn't cut or dried either way. This isn't 100% a foul. I could even question if the keeper was actually late for his challenge. The attacker had to leave his feet and arguably create a dangerous play to get off a panicked touch in time. Had the attacker not made this rushed and awkward touch the keeper's timing might of been perfect. Ultimately, both players took a risk, but I'm not sure one bears the burden of the outcome more than the other.

Too be perfectly honest, if my son is the attacker I'm probably adamant its a PK, if my son's a keeper (fortunately he is not) I'm probably just as adamant its a not a PK. However, I can't for the life of me see how this would be a DOGSO and a card, but reasonable minds can disagree.

I guess I am ignoring all the "ifs", "buts", and "maybes" and just going on what happened.
- The attacking player got there first and played the ball.
- The GK got there second and so played the man.
- The GK was the last man and the ball was in play when the foul was committed.
- Its a DOGSO based on the rules, so PK and yellow card for GK.

If either was my son I'd have the same opinion. If the attacker was my son, I'd probably have to ask him afterwards if he drew the foul from the GK for a PK, or just got clipped when trying to score. Either scenario is likely with him, and both would still be PKs.

 

[whatithink]

Penalty. Yellow card. DOGSO would only be if the ball was playable after the tackle. It was not.

I'd call DOGSO as I viewed the ball as playable, i.e. the defender could have played it but slowed and let it go out, so if the attacker had not been taken out, its probable he could have played it etc.

 

[baldref]

I'd call DOGSO as I viewed the ball as playable, i.e. the defender could have played it but slowed and let it go out, so if the attacker had not been taken out, its probable he could have played it etc.

My view was the attacker wouldn't have gotten to it with an obvious chance to score if he wasn't taken down after his touch. But either way, I see it PK and yellow.

 

[espola]

Did the keeper yell "Keeper"?