The Referee Forum: Should these be penalties? - The Referee Forum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Should these be penalties?

#1 User is offline   joshdajoker 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 116
  • Joined: 04-June 09

Posted 27 March 2016 - 11:25 AM

https://m.facebook.c...446062158758076

This post has been edited by joshdajoker: 27 March 2016 - 11:26 AM


#2 User is offline   Sheffields Finest 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 12,224
  • Joined: 04-December 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2016 - 03:29 PM

Hardly, YC's for USB.

#3 User is offline   RustyRef 

  • Forum Mentor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 8,087
  • Joined: 16-April 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 27 March 2016 - 10:11 PM

View PostSheffields Finest, on 27 March 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

Hardly, YC's for USB.


Which means you have to stop play. You'd be doing this because the keeper charged the attacker, so the only outcome I can see is a penalty.

#4 User is offline   Goldfish 

  • Select Group
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 3,685
  • Joined: 02-October 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

Posted 28 March 2016 - 10:23 AM

Hi
No reason for the goalkeeper to do this other then to charge an opponent with the ball which is a foul. In addition it is a caution for USB.
I awarded a penalty last season when the goalkeeper with the ball in his hands deliberately charged at opponent as he ran out with the ball. Only reason he did it was to go out of his way to bang into an opponent. Opponent was not in his way. Penalty and a caution.
In the second one it is a blatant wave of an opponent towards him and then an illegal charge. Stonewall pen and a caution. Puts an end to that nonsense.
Anyway I believe the referee cautioned the attacker and restarted with a DFK to the goalkeeper. Ref probably did not have a clue what happened other than what looked like a slightly raised leg by the attacker. Wonder what he thinks now that it has gone viral.

This post has been edited by Goldfish: 28 March 2016 - 10:48 AM


#5 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 28 March 2016 - 11:15 AM

Absolutely these are penalties. Charges an opponent, jumps at an opponent, strikes/attempts to strike an opponent, take your pick. I'd go for one of the latter 2 myself, I think 'charges' implies contact is maintained with the ground.

It's a penal offence. concerningly, a number of referees on a facebook page argued for PIADM - not going to be PIADM when he has deliberately attempted to make contact with an opponent - and not PIADM when he HAS made contact with an opponent!

Definitely a caution, The second in particular is actually quite dangerous. I don't think there really is sufficient force for a red card.

#6 User is offline   Bartek 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 1,788
  • Joined: 16-November 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Partille, Sweden

Posted 29 March 2016 - 08:14 AM

Also keep in mind that you could give the indirect kick and caution for USB as soon as the goalkeeper gets his antics going. This way you can prevent the problem from escalating.

#7 User is offline   HoldenMan 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 773
  • Joined: 04-May 13

Posted 29 March 2016 - 11:54 PM

As soon as? The moment he grabs the ball he jumps at an opponent - he hasn't done anything wrong until that point. No option for IFK.

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users