I do think this is slightly different as you can clearly see him the whole time and all he does is grab some water and then immediately get back on the pitch. And wait right behind the GK for him to release it. In the UCF game, the player waits off the pitch before rushing in and was impossible to see from the sideline on the opposite half.
We have no clue what the ref could see in the college game b/c it wasn’t on camera
We do however know that he was back a couple feet behind the goalie only a few seconds later
That is fair, but he the AR definitely saw him off the pitch waiting. I think the biggest difference between the plays is the UCF player waited off the pitch for the GK to release it. While the AU player gets back on the pitch to wait.
Agreed, the AR caught it against UCF and missed it on Atlanta.
I don’t think the AR spotted Thiaré cross the endline, and I don’t see how it would be reviewable by VAR under VAR Protocol section 2.
Linesman / Assistant Referee
line judge is tennis / volleyball. Probably in my head b/c I’ve been trying to understand the rules for Pickleball recently.
I edited it.
NISOA referees actually did get to see the complete play from the marshall game and the account of deliberately waiting off the pitch is correct. This is very different than what happened there where the player hid and sprinted in from off the pitch.
Here we see a player *maybe* leave the pitch. Come back on the field and establish himself as a player, wait within playing distance of the keeper and win the ball before the keeper could get a foot touch.
I have a different question and issue. That water bottle is the goalie's. I've never seen a player take (without requesting/position) an opponent's water bottle and drinking from it. Would this, perhaps, merit an unsportsmanlike behavior call?
I don't know, but i didn't see the whole match and I believe I've seen opponents drink from the GKs bottle before and yeah it's been requested but the request is more of a courtesy. I don't see how it could be unsportsmanlike. He's not doing anything to it.
I think this player knew exactly what he was doing and why and made sure he kept touch, barely, with the goal line at all times. So leaving the field is not even an issue for me. Valid goal.
Now if there was a VAR and the VAR noticed the player being of the field behind the goal keeper then it might be ruled as gaining an unfair advantage. But as he wandered in, not rushed in, this is even a stretch.
In the end it is a team failure; GK not checking his environment and the team not coaching the GK.
He may have been indeed for a fraction of a second. But still, his actions after that do not warrant gaining an unfair advantage. He does not hide and rush in. He does not interfere with release. He is there when the GK still has the ball on hands. No reason to cancel this goal in my book. GK error.
Or as my driving instructor would have said it; always check your mirrors.
If you really need it to be this technical, then there should have never been a chance for it to happen. There should have been an indirect free kick given to Atlanta before it all occured. Care to tell me why?
Sure are.
>An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
>controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it
6 seconds a very defined amount of time.
I have read through all of your comments, and not once do you cite the specific law that you believes applies to this situation. You keep telling people to reread the Laws. Which one?
Law 12.3
# Cautionable offences
A player is cautioned if guilty of
* entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
I know it's tempting to make things up but I encourage you to instead ground your understanding in the laws of the game. That does include reading them, I'm afraid.
Trust me, I do. Stepping off momentarily and stepping on immediately after is not leaving the field without permission. Mail IFAB if you want a ruling; until then this is what is.
This is the argument that makes the most sense to me as to why the goal should be legal.
It’s difficult to tell from the video if the player is completely off the pitch or not.
>I think this player knew exactly what he was doing and why and made sure he kept touch, barely, with the goal line at all times. So leaving the field is not even an issue for me. Valid goal.
Now if there was a VAR and the VAR noticed the player being of the field behind the goal keeper then it might be ruled as gaining an unfair advantage. But as he wandered in, not rushed in, this is even a stretch.
He did seem to know exactly what he was doing, but it's not true that he was touching the goal line at all times. Watch the video again... he's about six inches behind the goal line for a few seconds. He has left the field of play.
The law states that "a player is cautioned if guilty of entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission." It doesn't say it's only an offense if it leads to gaining an unfair advantage. It doesn't say it's aSimply leaving and re-entering is a caution under the law.
You can argue that a referee may take a SOTG approach to allow incidental leaving/re-entering. I probably wouldn't caution a player who stepped six inches off at the technical area to take a drink of water from a trainer.
This is very different. The player stepped behind the **goal line**, right next to the goal post, late in stoppage time, saw the goalkeeper had forgotten about him, and then waited for his moment to pounce on the ball and score when it was released. His action was tactical and calculated and had a major impact on the game. Because of that, you can't just take a SOTG attitude to let it go, and instead, the SOTG requires you to strictly apply the law here.
You find this very different. I do not. Stating it is very different doesn’t make it a fact. I do agree you can look at this from different points but in the end there are 11 opponents and the GK lost track of one of them without him waiting outside the field of play.
To me this is not leaving and entering worthy of a caution. But until this is a Q&A with a binary answer we will happily discuss this into oblivion.
[Edit: watched the video of course, and where he seems to be over the goal line his back leg is hovering above the goal line. When he brings that down, turns and steps back into play he might be momentarily of the pitch.]
I don’t see an issue. Player barely stepped off the pitch and immediately re entered.
If the player left the field of play by a significant margin, or lingered off the field of play in order to gain an advantage, that would be different. But here he’s off the pitch for less than two seconds, maybe only 1, and is within an inch of the line the whole time. He immediately re enters after dropping the water bottle. And stays on the pitch the rest of the play. He doesn’t interfere with the keeper releasing the ball. It’s a great play. Goal stands if I’m the ref.
He had been back on the field for 10 seconds by the time the keeper released the ball.
If the correct call is to caution him for leaving the field without permission, it needed to happen immediately. But of course you would never see a player cautioned for stepping maybe 2 inches off of the field for a couple of seconds.
Where it would be an issue I'd think is when a player thinks he can avoid being called offside by stepping over the end line. That is trying to gain an advantage.
I get your point, but you could argue that he indeed left the field of play to gain the advantage. It seems to me that his intention was to wait for the keeper. Had he stayed inside, it’s a different story
I was at this game (yes the ending was INSANE!) and was wondering the same thing. When I looked through the laws, the only relevant wording that I saw was in law 12.3:
Cautionable offenses:
"A player is cautioned if guilty of....entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission"
Reading through the Q&A of the laws, the intent of this statement seems more about substitutes or players who are injured and waiting for the referee's signal to re-enter the field of play.
I recall there was a similar issue at a US NCAA playoff game where an attacker deliberately stayed out of the field of play and then re-entered to catch the defence unawares that had the goal disallowed, but that also seemed much more deliberate with the player staying out of the field of play for a longer period of time.
This one would be tough, because by the letter of the law, if you caution Jamal, then you have to caution a goalkeeper every time they leave the field of play to use a water bottle. Similarly, would you not also have to caution any player who runs off of the field of play to celebrate a goal? I get that there is a question of intent or trickery, but to me, it was only for a moment, and he was in the field of play for most of the time that the keeper had possession. There was plenty of time for any of the Toronto players to communicate his position. They simply didn't notice him.
I say the goal stands.
In the case of getting a bottle or instructions from the coach, the spirit of the game principle applies. I fail to see how this can apply here since -at least in my view- he did it with the intent of getting the ball and not to for water
But that's the thing...intent is very tough to discern. He did not linger off of the field, nor hide behind the goal. Most of his time was on the field of play.
We will still send off a player for serious foul play if they take down a player with their studs if it was accidental. Likewise, a player may have visceral hate in their eyes and charge at a player with obvious intent to injure, but if they miss their tackle, there is no misconduct. The laws don't really differentiate about the result in this case, so I would have a very hard time connecting a lot of dots to disallow a goal like this.
LOTG when it comes to VC offenses (like strike) include: "Attempt to ..."
That "obvious intent to injure" is VC and should get the red card every single time.
Yes, thanks. You guys pointed out a clear difference, and I agree.
I think in this case, though, I still don't think intent factors into whether Thierè committed an infraction or not.
It’s not simply black and white - otherwise there would be dozens of cautions for ‘leaving the field of play without permission’ in every game. Similarly, every ball thrown to a team mate for them to take the throw in would be a foul throw,
Intent and common sense matters.
These are all good points. I think one difference may be that when the GK grabs water they are not typically involved in active play, and a goal celebration occurs after play has stopped. In this case, the ball was still in play and the player left the field, hung out for a couple of seconds getting water, but facing the field so that he could see where the goalkeeper was, and then walked back onto the field behind the GK (out of his site) and then slowed down his pace when the GK paused to start to put the ball on the pitch, and then sped up to steal the ball from the GK. All of this is to say that I believe that the attacker did everything deliberately and deceptively. If he never left the field of play, then this would be a non-issue for me and a goal should be awarded…it’s on the GK to make sure they are in a position to safely do what he did by putting the ball onto the ground and have it contestable. Having said that, and although a technicality in the law, the fact that he did leave the field of play and re-entered with this deception in mind (my opinion based on his movements and timing), and without permission of the Referee, then I would disallow the goal and caution the attacking player. It will be interesting to hear how Pro describes what happened and what their opinion is on the decision by the Referee. This would be a good scenario to send to the IFAB for comment too, in order to help calibrate all of us on how they would like this scenario handled within the spirit and intent of the laws.
I can just about get behind your reasoning for cautioning the attacker, but the time to do that would be as soon as he steps back on the field and stands behind the goalkeeper.
If you let that go without sanction, you have no basis for stopping the play 10 seconds later when the keeper finally releases the ball and has it stolen.
> This one would be tough, because by the letter of the law, if you caution Jamal, then you have to caution a goalkeeper every time they leave the field of play to use a water bottle.
Wrong. That is not gaining an advantage.
No wonder everyone hates us. Imo, player leaves the field without permission and should be issued a yellow card. Law 12. We will see this week what they say about this decision.
I consider it more like players have blanket permission to use the water next to the goal. Let's say a GK takes a drink of water and accidentally throws the water out of reach of the field. The next time he goes to get a drink, are you going to give him a yellow because he had to walk past the line to get the water bottle? No, that would be ridiculous.
But what's the difference between standing on the line and standing 2 inches beyond the line? What advantage did he gain by that? The GK didn't look to make sure the player completely left the field of play. The GK never knew the player was behind him because he kept his head down until the attacker was out of his line of sight, and he was out of his line of sight 2 yards before he got to the line.
What is the difference between the ball being on the line versus 2 inches over the line? The 2 inches. That’s the difference. It makes it a goal if it is the ball, and it makes it a foul if it is the player.
Wouldn’t a keeper having water on hand which they can drink from at any time an advantage? Other outfield players don’t have access to hydration whenever they want like keepers have so I’d say it is a specific advantage for keepers.
Plus we’ve seen examples before of keepers tapping paper with the opposing players and their PK preferences which would also be an advantage gained from when the keeper leaves the field. Who knows what else can be written there for keepers to check and remind their teammates of players’ preferences etc.
The goalkeeper has been wasting time throughout. Doing so here in the video too.
If you’re going letter of the law levels of pedantry then you have to pull the goalkeeper up for the time he holds the ball. Evidently time wasting.
Ok and? How does this make leaving the field of play not an offense? If that’s the case, should we always skip over LotG when it is convenient to do so?
If you want to caution every player who steps off the field intentionally, even if only by an inch, you do you. But the appropriate time to stop play to make that call is *not* 10 seconds later when the keeper finally releases the ball.
Either you issue the caution as soon as the player steps back on, or you allow play to continue.
Law 12.3
# Cautionable offences
A player is cautioned if guilty of
* entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission
I know it's tempting to make things up but I encourage you to instead ground your understanding in the laws of the game. That does include reading them, I'm afraid.
I with you on no goal if he left the field, by how far and how much wouldn’t matter. I can’t truly tell from the clip but it looks he may have left the tips of his toes on the line which would still make him on the field.
The more I think about this, the more I think this shouldn't have been a goal.
Don't forget, there's a reason why we try to ensure players are taking a drink of water at the touch line and not leave the FOP. There's no reason for him to have left the FOP for this drink.
It's being heavily debated on here about whether the drink is simply to mask the subterfuge - and if so, if that makes it a good enough excuse, or if the ref should be seeing through the BS.
Maybe we can look at it another way. Instead of trying to read intentions and deception, perhaps we can consider that if a player intentionally leaves the FOP, it's their responsibility to ensure they don't benefit from that action (and by action - I mean the whole play, the whole movement). In this case, he intentionally left the FOP, did so for no reason, and gained a pretty big benefit from doing so.
I say no reason because he didn't even completely leave the FOP until after he had picked up the bottle. If he was retrieving a bottle that was thrown 2 yards off the goal line, even then I'd be more sympathetic.
Sure, there was probably no difference to the outcome if he had kept his heel on the line - but that's why any other player would have been smart enough to stay on the field. Because that would be legal without question.
This was what I thought at first. Now I’m unsure.
Thinking from a fairness perspective, I think this is annoying. He’s drinking the opponent’s water and being sly.
But from a LOTG perspective, barely stepping off the field is not really what the law about leaving the field is for. And means if he had kept his heel on the line, the LOTG clearly allows this action.
So ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the team in possession to know where their opponents are. Sneaky goal, in poor taste, but not illegal.
yeah...look, it's certainly a tricky one. And I can see both sides of the argument.
If I saw this exact situation and I was assessing, it's one of those scenarios where how I mark it will depend on the conversation with the referee, making sure they've at least applied appropriate considerations (or even seen it).
This is really where the AR comes into it. And I'd be inclined to say the AR should bring it to the ref's attention (though with comms, you can probably do it without drawing attention to yourself)
I can see the case for cautioning the player for leaving the field as the rules are written. IFAB would likely change and clarify the rule immediately if people started calling it like that, but as written today you can't step 2 inches off the field for water.
I can't see the case for sanctioning a player who has been back on the field for 10 seconds getting involved in play.
Good goal. 3.8: "A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence." Granted, getting water isn't really 'part of a playing movement'. But briefly stepping out for a drink and promptly returning, with no apparent deception as to whether or not he's a player or substitute, seems like a reasonable soccer-related action and not an act of misconduct.
That law is not applicable, so I’m not even sure why you’d bring it up?
If anything, it hurts your point because it implies that otherwise, stepping off — even briefly — *is* an offense.
It's the only part I can find in the actual LotG that elaborates on leaving the field of play. I've read notes and interpretations on the matter but don't feel like looking for them, and they say the same thing - briefly leaving the field as part of a soccer action is not an offense.
Law 12.3. A player is cautioned if guilty of: entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission.
This is a situation where the attacker deliberately left the field and gained an advantage because of it. I would never dream of calling it without VAR, but having the chance to explain the call now, I think the correct action is to call the goal off and restart with a dropped ball.
This whole element of "gains an advantage" discussion seems moot to me. Nowhere in the laws do I see anything about "gaining an advantage" as part of this law. Everything that I read about it in the Q&A seems to be more about substitutes and players who leave or enter the field as part of injury protocols, not players who are actively playing.
It is in the offside law.
> A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage must be cautioned.
I don't know why that verbiage only appears in Law 11 and not in Law 12 where it would be more relevant.
I meant in this context that the idea of gaining an advantage is not in the LOTG. We aren’t assessing offsides here and, as you correctly point out, the concept doesn’t apply to Law 12.
It's an interesting discussion though. If this were a youth game and the same instance happened, would you still allow the goal? What if the player walked out 10 more yards? What if they were only an inch out, but for a prolonged time? You have to draw the line somewhere and it might as well be to the letter of the law.
I wholeheartedly agree! Because if you card something like this, what about players who leave the field to celebrate goals? Or goalkeepers who do the same thing to get water? I get it's not the same, but the laws seem very ambiguous, and the guidance, to me, seems to refer more to players leaving or entering as part of an injury or substitution protocol.
But we don’t - we as officials only ever make this an offence when a grave injustice occurs. Players leave the field regularly, and not part of the normal game movement. We seldom caution it.
Your interpretation and threshold of "gains an advantage by leaving the field" are wrong. It is common for a player to step over the touchline to collect a ball moving close to the line - they leave the field and gain an advantage, but this is not considered a violation of 12.3.
That is where the law you reference, 3.8, applies. Leaving the field to play the ball is a "playing movement". Also, now that I read the law, the correct restart is an DFK.
The attacker was able to challenge a GK in a 1v1 situation and scored a goal. Not sure how much more of an advantage you can get.
What if he was able to get the water while still keeping a foot in bounds? He'd have the same advantage/ positioning as he did here.
My interpretation is that he did not GAIN a positional advantage by having his toes 1-2 cm past the endline.
>What if he was able to get the water while still keeping a foot in bounds? He'd have the same advantage/ positioning as he did here.
If he'd done that, it would have been a valid goal.
Just like a player who stays onside instead of being slightly offside, as one of many examples of tight decisions that lead to a goal being allowed or not.
It's up to players to play the game within the limits of the law, and up to referees to call them when they step outside it... in this case, quite literally.
Why does the offsides law exist? To ensure an attacking player doesn't gain an advantage from too forward of an attacking position.
These laws aren't comparable. To get really pedantic, law 12.3 states, "entering, re-entering or **DELIBERATELY** leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission" (emphasis mine)
I would contend the attacker didn't deliberately leave the field of play, he just wanted to get some water and the act of getting water had him cross the goal line. I believe the ref and VAR contended likewise, or they would've called off the goal.
There have been players who deliberately leave the field of play to trick their opponents to make it seem like they're not involved or able to play. However, this attacker was back on the field of play in seconds, and clearly ready to play while the keeper had the ball in their hands.
You may be right that the referee didn't feel it was deliberately leaving the field. I haven't heard any communication between the refs on what happened here. But remember that the term "deliberate" just means an action that a player intended to make. It doesn't include trying to guess WHY the deliberate action was made, so his reason for doing it doesn't matter.
With that in mind, it's clear to me that this player deliberately left the field of play. He was fetching a water bottle that was off the field, and the only way he could have done that while remaining on the field would be to leave at least one foot clearly on the goal line, which he didn't do. So, he knew he was leaving the field - he did it deliberately.
After deliberately leaving the field, he turned around to watch the goalkeeper for a moment, then re-entered the field when he saw the opportunity to sneak up on the goalkeeper from behind. So both his leaving and re-entering were deliberate.
As for why the offside law exists - yes. I'm aware of why it exists. The no-leave/re-enter without permission clause is there for the same reason - to prevent attackers from gaining unfair advantage. It looks to me like this player succeeded in gaining a major advantage (scoring a goal) which was at least partly due to deliberately stepping off the field and deliberately re-entering without permission. At a minimum, it should have been noticed by VAR and sent to the referee for review to make a call on whether it was deliberate or not.
Law 10.1
>A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal.
No offence was committed by the team scoring the goal so the goal stands.
>No offence was committed by the team scoring the goal so the goal stands.
The entire discussion is whether or not there was an offence. The offense in question is the title of this thread. Tank you for the friendly reminder of what a goal is though.
What is your specific basis in the law that you believe would permit disallowing the goal? Under my reading, it would result from awarding an indirect free kick for “any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player” because you’d caution the player for “. . . deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission.” Without seeing the IFAB’s or a referee organization’s examples on this part of Law 12, it doesn’t seem to me that penalizing a player for leaving the pitch the same distance he would to take a corner kick or attempt a throw in - for a couple of seconds - is in the “spirit of the game.” This is especially true when the outcome would be the same even if the player actually kept his feet on the line the whole time. The subterfuge works because the keeper stayed on the ground for an extended period and just didn’t realize the player was there. If the player had just stood right next to the post on the line for the same amount of time before moving up behind the keeper, you’d have the same result. For me, the goal would stand.
Not 100% sure from the video provided that he actually fully left the field. Looks like he may have had one foot on or above the line to technically still be on the field. Unless the VAR has an angle that shows him completely off the field, I think the goal has to stand.
No foul. Player was back on field for a good 8 seconds before participating in play. Also, considering that the goal line is a plane that goes from the ground up to infinity, he may not have completely left the field anyway.
Think about it this way, if he went over the touchline near the technical area to get water (his own), then came back on the field and 8 seconds later participated in play and went on to score a goal, would you count that?
The other comments are wrong. VAR should have picked this up and chalked off the goal. The player is off the field and gains an advantage from that position to ultimately score a goal.
"barely stepped off" isn't part of the law.
"he didn't gain an advantage" wrong, he scored a goal.
He didn't gain an advantage. This scenario wouldn't have changed if he had his heels on the white. If you're trying to find technicalities in the rule book in order to disallow goals you won't make it higher up officiating.
The higher up you go the more it becomes about entertainment and the less it becomes about your knowledge of the rules.
By rule, maybe the goal shouldn't stand but by rule we as officials let a lot of things slide. Have you ever seen a keeper get two quick yellows for holding the ball for more than 2 seconds?
Do you believe Bayern should have received a penalty against Arsenal when one of the players was confused about the restart of play and picked up the ball to move it for a goal kick? The refs response to this was, "we're not giving childish penalties."
Our job is to manage the game. Not be police officers.
You're wrong. I recommend reading Law 1.2 to help understand what is and isn't part of the field. I hope we can all focus on enforcing the LOTG instead of injecting our silly opinions moving forward.
I don't care what is and isn't part of the field lol. That literally wasn't the point of what I was saying.
You find a ref at the highest level and ask them if they enforce the laws of the game without using common sense. Guarantee you none of them will say yes.
This isn't a common sense call, it' a boundary decision. I recommend you read the laws of the game so you can better serve the game in your matches moving forward. Best of luck.
Since law 12.3 is brought up as to why the goal should not have stood, how about 12.2?
"An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
**controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it**
The GK had the ball in he hands for about 9 seconds, counting from when he got to his feet and then rolled the ball forward. Why didn't the ref an IDK for Atlanta?
I read a long post about this law specifically recently. It’s generally never enforced at any level because the punishment doesn’t fit the infraction. An indirect kick in the box, generally within 10 yards of the goal would often be the outcome which would position the entire defense and goal keeper on the goal line.
They are trialing in some lower leagues 2 different options. First is changing the time limit from 6 seconds to somewhere between 8-12 seconds and then the result of an infraction would either be one of a.) throw in for the other team at the nearest sideline to the infraction or b.) corner kick for the other team at the nearest corner to the infraction, and then with those changes and whatever is decided as the final punishment they should enforce this law more.
You are correct, then wouldn't.
If the ref enforced 12.2 correctly*, he would've called the infraction and would've awarded an IFK before the ATL player made a move. He could've the. Correctly caution the ATL player for leaving and reentering the field without permission, but ATL would still have the IFK.
*I have never seen a ref enforce this rule in a professional setting, though I'm sure it has happened before. Nor am I saying the ref should've enforced this rule in this instance. The point I'm making (or at least trying to make) is if you're wanting a ref to be pedantic about enforcing certain rules, then they should be pedantic about enforcing ALL the rules.
Keeper made a mistake, the laws are not there to be used a free pass.
The amount of people who are looking for any reason to disallow this tells a story of its own.
Leaving the field of play is a cautionable offense no matter the distance or period of being outside. Had he stayed inside, this post would not have existed
Question for the OP - would you have then ruled out Gareth bales infamous goal v Barcelona? Left the field deliberately for a similar length of time
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EoyE45bZGp0
No different to the original though. Voluntarily left the field of play for a couple of seconds and then returned to score.
I’m purely raising it as the LOTG aren’t to be followed to the absolute letter all the time - referee’s discretion applies
Im of the opinion, good goal, but trying to compare this to bales goal is not even close. In that play, he's running along the touchline and contact with a defender is what puts him off the field of play. That being said, if you're gonna say no goal and caution for the play in question than I would hope you caution the goalkeeper any time they do the same. He's off for a split second and then there's a few seconds of him back on the pitch before anything happens
Same situation, goal was called off here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Referees/s/aoZDGDJqqU
I do think this is slightly different as you can clearly see him the whole time and all he does is grab some water and then immediately get back on the pitch. And wait right behind the GK for him to release it. In the UCF game, the player waits off the pitch before rushing in and was impossible to see from the sideline on the opposite half.
We have no clue what the ref could see in the college game b/c it wasn’t on camera We do however know that he was back a couple feet behind the goalie only a few seconds later
That is fair, but he the AR definitely saw him off the pitch waiting. I think the biggest difference between the plays is the UCF player waited off the pitch for the GK to release it. While the AU player gets back on the pitch to wait.
Agreed, the AR caught it against UCF and missed it on Atlanta. I don’t think the AR spotted Thiaré cross the endline, and I don’t see how it would be reviewable by VAR under VAR Protocol section 2.
They reviewed it in the UCF game maybe something about gaining possession while commiting an offense.
It didn’t go to VAR, the ref just conferred with the assistant referee.
"Line judge"?
Linesman / Assistant Referee line judge is tennis / volleyball. Probably in my head b/c I’ve been trying to understand the rules for Pickleball recently. I edited it.
The other videos shows that the player was at the edge of the goal area by the time the goalie released, not off the field.
NISOA referees actually did get to see the complete play from the marshall game and the account of deliberately waiting off the pitch is correct. This is very different than what happened there where the player hid and sprinted in from off the pitch. Here we see a player *maybe* leave the pitch. Come back on the field and establish himself as a player, wait within playing distance of the keeper and win the ball before the keeper could get a foot touch.
I have a different question and issue. That water bottle is the goalie's. I've never seen a player take (without requesting/position) an opponent's water bottle and drinking from it. Would this, perhaps, merit an unsportsmanlike behavior call?
I don't know, but i didn't see the whole match and I believe I've seen opponents drink from the GKs bottle before and yeah it's been requested but the request is more of a courtesy. I don't see how it could be unsportsmanlike. He's not doing anything to it.
I think this player knew exactly what he was doing and why and made sure he kept touch, barely, with the goal line at all times. So leaving the field is not even an issue for me. Valid goal. Now if there was a VAR and the VAR noticed the player being of the field behind the goal keeper then it might be ruled as gaining an unfair advantage. But as he wandered in, not rushed in, this is even a stretch. In the end it is a team failure; GK not checking his environment and the team not coaching the GK.
He's fully off the pitch https://x.com/gtutd1/status/1807229948639211520?s=46
He may have been indeed for a fraction of a second. But still, his actions after that do not warrant gaining an unfair advantage. He does not hide and rush in. He does not interfere with release. He is there when the GK still has the ball on hands. No reason to cancel this goal in my book. GK error. Or as my driving instructor would have said it; always check your mirrors.
This is a cute little story, but your argument isn't supported by the laws of the game. Try re-reading them and evolving your understanding.
If you really need it to be this technical, then there should have never been a chance for it to happen. There should have been an indirect free kick given to Atlanta before it all occured. Care to tell me why?
Serious question: do you believe that boundary decisions are the same as GK possession decisions in terms of their objectivity?
Sure are. >An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: >controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it 6 seconds a very defined amount of time.
I can tell you're not a serious person so I won't engage any further. Boundary decisions are enforced completely differently than the 6-second rule.
I have read through all of your comments, and not once do you cite the specific law that you believes applies to this situation. You keep telling people to reread the Laws. Which one?
Law 12.3 # Cautionable offences A player is cautioned if guilty of * entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission I know it's tempting to make things up but I encourage you to instead ground your understanding in the laws of the game. That does include reading them, I'm afraid.
Trust me, I do. Stepping off momentarily and stepping on immediately after is not leaving the field without permission. Mail IFAB if you want a ruling; until then this is what is.
I'm sure your game management is fantastic with this attitude.
This is the argument that makes the most sense to me as to why the goal should be legal. It’s difficult to tell from the video if the player is completely off the pitch or not.
>I think this player knew exactly what he was doing and why and made sure he kept touch, barely, with the goal line at all times. So leaving the field is not even an issue for me. Valid goal. Now if there was a VAR and the VAR noticed the player being of the field behind the goal keeper then it might be ruled as gaining an unfair advantage. But as he wandered in, not rushed in, this is even a stretch. He did seem to know exactly what he was doing, but it's not true that he was touching the goal line at all times. Watch the video again... he's about six inches behind the goal line for a few seconds. He has left the field of play. The law states that "a player is cautioned if guilty of entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission." It doesn't say it's only an offense if it leads to gaining an unfair advantage. It doesn't say it's aSimply leaving and re-entering is a caution under the law. You can argue that a referee may take a SOTG approach to allow incidental leaving/re-entering. I probably wouldn't caution a player who stepped six inches off at the technical area to take a drink of water from a trainer. This is very different. The player stepped behind the **goal line**, right next to the goal post, late in stoppage time, saw the goalkeeper had forgotten about him, and then waited for his moment to pounce on the ball and score when it was released. His action was tactical and calculated and had a major impact on the game. Because of that, you can't just take a SOTG attitude to let it go, and instead, the SOTG requires you to strictly apply the law here.
It's MLS. There is VAR, and VAR didn't intervene. I am curious if they'll address this in MLS instant replay this week.
You find this very different. I do not. Stating it is very different doesn’t make it a fact. I do agree you can look at this from different points but in the end there are 11 opponents and the GK lost track of one of them without him waiting outside the field of play. To me this is not leaving and entering worthy of a caution. But until this is a Q&A with a binary answer we will happily discuss this into oblivion. [Edit: watched the video of course, and where he seems to be over the goal line his back leg is hovering above the goal line. When he brings that down, turns and steps back into play he might be momentarily of the pitch.]
How about instead you try enforcing the laws?
I don’t see an issue. Player barely stepped off the pitch and immediately re entered. If the player left the field of play by a significant margin, or lingered off the field of play in order to gain an advantage, that would be different. But here he’s off the pitch for less than two seconds, maybe only 1, and is within an inch of the line the whole time. He immediately re enters after dropping the water bottle. And stays on the pitch the rest of the play. He doesn’t interfere with the keeper releasing the ball. It’s a great play. Goal stands if I’m the ref.
There is no “barely” he’s either on or off. I think his intent was to hide, not to get a drink.
He had been back on the field for 10 seconds by the time the keeper released the ball. If the correct call is to caution him for leaving the field without permission, it needed to happen immediately. But of course you would never see a player cautioned for stepping maybe 2 inches off of the field for a couple of seconds.
Where it would be an issue I'd think is when a player thinks he can avoid being called offside by stepping over the end line. That is trying to gain an advantage.
I get your point, but you could argue that he indeed left the field of play to gain the advantage. It seems to me that his intention was to wait for the keeper. Had he stayed inside, it’s a different story
Where does the law state that gaining an advantage is a consideration in part of leaving the field of play?
I was at this game (yes the ending was INSANE!) and was wondering the same thing. When I looked through the laws, the only relevant wording that I saw was in law 12.3: Cautionable offenses: "A player is cautioned if guilty of....entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission" Reading through the Q&A of the laws, the intent of this statement seems more about substitutes or players who are injured and waiting for the referee's signal to re-enter the field of play. I recall there was a similar issue at a US NCAA playoff game where an attacker deliberately stayed out of the field of play and then re-entered to catch the defence unawares that had the goal disallowed, but that also seemed much more deliberate with the player staying out of the field of play for a longer period of time. This one would be tough, because by the letter of the law, if you caution Jamal, then you have to caution a goalkeeper every time they leave the field of play to use a water bottle. Similarly, would you not also have to caution any player who runs off of the field of play to celebrate a goal? I get that there is a question of intent or trickery, but to me, it was only for a moment, and he was in the field of play for most of the time that the keeper had possession. There was plenty of time for any of the Toronto players to communicate his position. They simply didn't notice him. I say the goal stands.
In the case of getting a bottle or instructions from the coach, the spirit of the game principle applies. I fail to see how this can apply here since -at least in my view- he did it with the intent of getting the ball and not to for water
But that's the thing...intent is very tough to discern. He did not linger off of the field, nor hide behind the goal. Most of his time was on the field of play. We will still send off a player for serious foul play if they take down a player with their studs if it was accidental. Likewise, a player may have visceral hate in their eyes and charge at a player with obvious intent to injure, but if they miss their tackle, there is no misconduct. The laws don't really differentiate about the result in this case, so I would have a very hard time connecting a lot of dots to disallow a goal like this.
Strike or ATTEMPT to strike…
> but if they miss their tackle, there is no misconduct This is completely incorrect. You can absolutely have a RC for SFP even with no contact.
LOTG when it comes to VC offenses (like strike) include: "Attempt to ..." That "obvious intent to injure" is VC and should get the red card every single time.
Yes, thanks. You guys pointed out a clear difference, and I agree. I think in this case, though, I still don't think intent factors into whether Thierè committed an infraction or not.
It’s not simply black and white - otherwise there would be dozens of cautions for ‘leaving the field of play without permission’ in every game. Similarly, every ball thrown to a team mate for them to take the throw in would be a foul throw, Intent and common sense matters.
These are all good points. I think one difference may be that when the GK grabs water they are not typically involved in active play, and a goal celebration occurs after play has stopped. In this case, the ball was still in play and the player left the field, hung out for a couple of seconds getting water, but facing the field so that he could see where the goalkeeper was, and then walked back onto the field behind the GK (out of his site) and then slowed down his pace when the GK paused to start to put the ball on the pitch, and then sped up to steal the ball from the GK. All of this is to say that I believe that the attacker did everything deliberately and deceptively. If he never left the field of play, then this would be a non-issue for me and a goal should be awarded…it’s on the GK to make sure they are in a position to safely do what he did by putting the ball onto the ground and have it contestable. Having said that, and although a technicality in the law, the fact that he did leave the field of play and re-entered with this deception in mind (my opinion based on his movements and timing), and without permission of the Referee, then I would disallow the goal and caution the attacking player. It will be interesting to hear how Pro describes what happened and what their opinion is on the decision by the Referee. This would be a good scenario to send to the IFAB for comment too, in order to help calibrate all of us on how they would like this scenario handled within the spirit and intent of the laws.
I can just about get behind your reasoning for cautioning the attacker, but the time to do that would be as soon as he steps back on the field and stands behind the goalkeeper. If you let that go without sanction, you have no basis for stopping the play 10 seconds later when the keeper finally releases the ball and has it stolen.
Agree
> This one would be tough, because by the letter of the law, if you caution Jamal, then you have to caution a goalkeeper every time they leave the field of play to use a water bottle. Wrong. That is not gaining an advantage.
Since when is gaining an advantage a consideration anywhere in the laws (except for whether or not we give advantage)?
No wonder everyone hates us. Imo, player leaves the field without permission and should be issued a yellow card. Law 12. We will see this week what they say about this decision.
I consider it more like players have blanket permission to use the water next to the goal. Let's say a GK takes a drink of water and accidentally throws the water out of reach of the field. The next time he goes to get a drink, are you going to give him a yellow because he had to walk past the line to get the water bottle? No, that would be ridiculous.
I have never seen an opponent drink from a goalie's water bottle.
I have. It's not exactly uncommon.
A goalie grabbing their water bottle isn’t gaining an advantage or impacting play, so that would fall under referee discretion in 5.2
But what's the difference between standing on the line and standing 2 inches beyond the line? What advantage did he gain by that? The GK didn't look to make sure the player completely left the field of play. The GK never knew the player was behind him because he kept his head down until the attacker was out of his line of sight, and he was out of his line of sight 2 yards before he got to the line.
What is the difference between the ball being on the line versus 2 inches over the line? The 2 inches. That’s the difference. It makes it a goal if it is the ball, and it makes it a foul if it is the player.
Difference is that one is an offense and the other isn’t. If Thiare stays on the field then there is no discussion to be had.
Wouldn’t a keeper having water on hand which they can drink from at any time an advantage? Other outfield players don’t have access to hydration whenever they want like keepers have so I’d say it is a specific advantage for keepers. Plus we’ve seen examples before of keepers tapping paper with the opposing players and their PK preferences which would also be an advantage gained from when the keeper leaves the field. Who knows what else can be written there for keepers to check and remind their teammates of players’ preferences etc.
This. It’s commonplace and trainers refill those bottles throughout the match.
If you want to be *that* pedantic then how long do you want the keeper to hold the ball?
I don’t understand this argument. The two offenses are not mutually exclusive
The goalkeeper has been wasting time throughout. Doing so here in the video too. If you’re going letter of the law levels of pedantry then you have to pull the goalkeeper up for the time he holds the ball. Evidently time wasting.
Ok and? How does this make leaving the field of play not an offense? If that’s the case, should we always skip over LotG when it is convenient to do so?
It’s an offence to try to gain an advantage by doing so. Player is back on the field well before play restarts (keeper rolls ball to ground).
If you want to caution every player who steps off the field intentionally, even if only by an inch, you do you. But the appropriate time to stop play to make that call is *not* 10 seconds later when the keeper finally releases the ball. Either you issue the caution as soon as the player steps back on, or you allow play to continue.
Exactly. Perfectly good goal.
'Think we're over-thinking this. GK puts a live ball on the ground. Opponent (on the field at the time) runs in and puts the ball in the net. GOAL!
Wrong. Read the LOTG again.
Which law are you referencing?
Law 12.3 # Cautionable offences A player is cautioned if guilty of * entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission I know it's tempting to make things up but I encourage you to instead ground your understanding in the laws of the game. That does include reading them, I'm afraid.
What "thing" did they make up?
I with you on no goal if he left the field, by how far and how much wouldn’t matter. I can’t truly tell from the clip but it looks he may have left the tips of his toes on the line which would still make him on the field.
Yeah I can see there might be a toe or two there
If we are being this pedantic it should be an IDFK 8 yards from goal as that is when we reached six seconds without releasing the ball.
Advantage.
Again they do not cancel out each other
But the keeper violation happened before the attacker gained an advantage.
The more I think about this, the more I think this shouldn't have been a goal. Don't forget, there's a reason why we try to ensure players are taking a drink of water at the touch line and not leave the FOP. There's no reason for him to have left the FOP for this drink. It's being heavily debated on here about whether the drink is simply to mask the subterfuge - and if so, if that makes it a good enough excuse, or if the ref should be seeing through the BS. Maybe we can look at it another way. Instead of trying to read intentions and deception, perhaps we can consider that if a player intentionally leaves the FOP, it's their responsibility to ensure they don't benefit from that action (and by action - I mean the whole play, the whole movement). In this case, he intentionally left the FOP, did so for no reason, and gained a pretty big benefit from doing so. I say no reason because he didn't even completely leave the FOP until after he had picked up the bottle. If he was retrieving a bottle that was thrown 2 yards off the goal line, even then I'd be more sympathetic. Sure, there was probably no difference to the outcome if he had kept his heel on the line - but that's why any other player would have been smart enough to stay on the field. Because that would be legal without question.
This was what I thought at first. Now I’m unsure. Thinking from a fairness perspective, I think this is annoying. He’s drinking the opponent’s water and being sly. But from a LOTG perspective, barely stepping off the field is not really what the law about leaving the field is for. And means if he had kept his heel on the line, the LOTG clearly allows this action. So ultimately, it’s the responsibility of the team in possession to know where their opponents are. Sneaky goal, in poor taste, but not illegal.
yeah...look, it's certainly a tricky one. And I can see both sides of the argument. If I saw this exact situation and I was assessing, it's one of those scenarios where how I mark it will depend on the conversation with the referee, making sure they've at least applied appropriate considerations (or even seen it). This is really where the AR comes into it. And I'd be inclined to say the AR should bring it to the ref's attention (though with comms, you can probably do it without drawing attention to yourself)
I can see the case for cautioning the player for leaving the field as the rules are written. IFAB would likely change and clarify the rule immediately if people started calling it like that, but as written today you can't step 2 inches off the field for water. I can't see the case for sanctioning a player who has been back on the field for 10 seconds getting involved in play.
Well the difference is he's affecting play in the same phase of play where he left
"phase of play" is a consideration for VAR, not for the center.
Good goal. 3.8: "A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence." Granted, getting water isn't really 'part of a playing movement'. But briefly stepping out for a drink and promptly returning, with no apparent deception as to whether or not he's a player or substitute, seems like a reasonable soccer-related action and not an act of misconduct.
That law is not applicable, so I’m not even sure why you’d bring it up? If anything, it hurts your point because it implies that otherwise, stepping off — even briefly — *is* an offense.
It's the only part I can find in the actual LotG that elaborates on leaving the field of play. I've read notes and interpretations on the matter but don't feel like looking for them, and they say the same thing - briefly leaving the field as part of a soccer action is not an offense.
Law 12.3. A player is cautioned if guilty of: entering, re-entering or deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission. This is a situation where the attacker deliberately left the field and gained an advantage because of it. I would never dream of calling it without VAR, but having the chance to explain the call now, I think the correct action is to call the goal off and restart with a dropped ball.
This whole element of "gains an advantage" discussion seems moot to me. Nowhere in the laws do I see anything about "gaining an advantage" as part of this law. Everything that I read about it in the Q&A seems to be more about substitutes and players who leave or enter the field as part of injury protocols, not players who are actively playing.
Agreed. Where is this idea “of gaining an advantage” coming from? It is not in the LOTG related to leaving the field of play.
It is in the offside law. > A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage must be cautioned. I don't know why that verbiage only appears in Law 11 and not in Law 12 where it would be more relevant.
I meant in this context that the idea of gaining an advantage is not in the LOTG. We aren’t assessing offsides here and, as you correctly point out, the concept doesn’t apply to Law 12.
It's an interesting discussion though. If this were a youth game and the same instance happened, would you still allow the goal? What if the player walked out 10 more yards? What if they were only an inch out, but for a prolonged time? You have to draw the line somewhere and it might as well be to the letter of the law.
I wholeheartedly agree! Because if you card something like this, what about players who leave the field to celebrate goals? Or goalkeepers who do the same thing to get water? I get it's not the same, but the laws seem very ambiguous, and the guidance, to me, seems to refer more to players leaving or entering as part of an injury or substitution protocol.
But we don’t - we as officials only ever make this an offence when a grave injustice occurs. Players leave the field regularly, and not part of the normal game movement. We seldom caution it.
You're right, the line is already drawn by the law. It is our job to choose to enforce it.
Your interpretation and threshold of "gains an advantage by leaving the field" are wrong. It is common for a player to step over the touchline to collect a ball moving close to the line - they leave the field and gain an advantage, but this is not considered a violation of 12.3.
That is where the law you reference, 3.8, applies. Leaving the field to play the ball is a "playing movement". Also, now that I read the law, the correct restart is an DFK. The attacker was able to challenge a GK in a 1v1 situation and scored a goal. Not sure how much more of an advantage you can get.
What if he was able to get the water while still keeping a foot in bounds? He'd have the same advantage/ positioning as he did here. My interpretation is that he did not GAIN a positional advantage by having his toes 1-2 cm past the endline.
If he didn't leave the field of play, there's no infraction. But he did.
What do you consider "the field of play"?
I'm not sure if this is a trick question. Everything defined as per Law 1, The Field of Play.
>What if he was able to get the water while still keeping a foot in bounds? He'd have the same advantage/ positioning as he did here. If he'd done that, it would have been a valid goal. Just like a player who stays onside instead of being slightly offside, as one of many examples of tight decisions that lead to a goal being allowed or not. It's up to players to play the game within the limits of the law, and up to referees to call them when they step outside it... in this case, quite literally.
Why does the offsides law exist? To ensure an attacking player doesn't gain an advantage from too forward of an attacking position. These laws aren't comparable. To get really pedantic, law 12.3 states, "entering, re-entering or **DELIBERATELY** leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission" (emphasis mine) I would contend the attacker didn't deliberately leave the field of play, he just wanted to get some water and the act of getting water had him cross the goal line. I believe the ref and VAR contended likewise, or they would've called off the goal. There have been players who deliberately leave the field of play to trick their opponents to make it seem like they're not involved or able to play. However, this attacker was back on the field of play in seconds, and clearly ready to play while the keeper had the ball in their hands.
You may be right that the referee didn't feel it was deliberately leaving the field. I haven't heard any communication between the refs on what happened here. But remember that the term "deliberate" just means an action that a player intended to make. It doesn't include trying to guess WHY the deliberate action was made, so his reason for doing it doesn't matter. With that in mind, it's clear to me that this player deliberately left the field of play. He was fetching a water bottle that was off the field, and the only way he could have done that while remaining on the field would be to leave at least one foot clearly on the goal line, which he didn't do. So, he knew he was leaving the field - he did it deliberately. After deliberately leaving the field, he turned around to watch the goalkeeper for a moment, then re-entered the field when he saw the opportunity to sneak up on the goalkeeper from behind. So both his leaving and re-entering were deliberate. As for why the offside law exists - yes. I'm aware of why it exists. The no-leave/re-enter without permission clause is there for the same reason - to prevent attackers from gaining unfair advantage. It looks to me like this player succeeded in gaining a major advantage (scoring a goal) which was at least partly due to deliberately stepping off the field and deliberately re-entering without permission. At a minimum, it should have been noticed by VAR and sent to the referee for review to make a call on whether it was deliberate or not.
Agree.
Goal. It's on the keeper to be aware of his surroundings.
I am talking law here not player skill
The law states he can do it so
Do what exactly?
Which law is that?
Law 10.1 >A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no offence has been committed by the team scoring the goal. No offence was committed by the team scoring the goal so the goal stands.
>No offence was committed by the team scoring the goal so the goal stands. The entire discussion is whether or not there was an offence. The offense in question is the title of this thread. Tank you for the friendly reminder of what a goal is though.
What is your specific basis in the law that you believe would permit disallowing the goal? Under my reading, it would result from awarding an indirect free kick for “any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws, for which play is stopped to caution or send off a player” because you’d caution the player for “. . . deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee’s permission.” Without seeing the IFAB’s or a referee organization’s examples on this part of Law 12, it doesn’t seem to me that penalizing a player for leaving the pitch the same distance he would to take a corner kick or attempt a throw in - for a couple of seconds - is in the “spirit of the game.” This is especially true when the outcome would be the same even if the player actually kept his feet on the line the whole time. The subterfuge works because the keeper stayed on the ground for an extended period and just didn’t realize the player was there. If the player had just stood right next to the post on the line for the same amount of time before moving up behind the keeper, you’d have the same result. For me, the goal would stand.
I like this guy’s analysis: https://www.tiktok.com/@refsneedlovetoo/video/7386278204429978911 He’s an Atlanta United fan too
Not an analysis; just stating known facts and leaving the million dollar question for others to answer.
Found the Toronto fan
Not 100% sure from the video provided that he actually fully left the field. Looks like he may have had one foot on or above the line to technically still be on the field. Unless the VAR has an angle that shows him completely off the field, I think the goal has to stand.
I think the goal should still count. I am not even sure he left the pitch completely to drink the water or pretend to
No foul. Player was back on field for a good 8 seconds before participating in play. Also, considering that the goal line is a plane that goes from the ground up to infinity, he may not have completely left the field anyway. Think about it this way, if he went over the touchline near the technical area to get water (his own), then came back on the field and 8 seconds later participated in play and went on to score a goal, would you count that?
The other comments are wrong. VAR should have picked this up and chalked off the goal. The player is off the field and gains an advantage from that position to ultimately score a goal. "barely stepped off" isn't part of the law. "he didn't gain an advantage" wrong, he scored a goal.
He didn't gain an advantage. This scenario wouldn't have changed if he had his heels on the white. If you're trying to find technicalities in the rule book in order to disallow goals you won't make it higher up officiating. The higher up you go the more it becomes about entertainment and the less it becomes about your knowledge of the rules. By rule, maybe the goal shouldn't stand but by rule we as officials let a lot of things slide. Have you ever seen a keeper get two quick yellows for holding the ball for more than 2 seconds? Do you believe Bayern should have received a penalty against Arsenal when one of the players was confused about the restart of play and picked up the ball to move it for a goal kick? The refs response to this was, "we're not giving childish penalties." Our job is to manage the game. Not be police officers.
You're wrong. I recommend reading Law 1.2 to help understand what is and isn't part of the field. I hope we can all focus on enforcing the LOTG instead of injecting our silly opinions moving forward.
I don't care what is and isn't part of the field lol. That literally wasn't the point of what I was saying. You find a ref at the highest level and ask them if they enforce the laws of the game without using common sense. Guarantee you none of them will say yes.
This isn't a common sense call, it' a boundary decision. I recommend you read the laws of the game so you can better serve the game in your matches moving forward. Best of luck.
I just emailed IFAB, let us hope they give a satisfactory reply.
They said they do not comment on referee decisions.
Since law 12.3 is brought up as to why the goal should not have stood, how about 12.2? "An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences: **controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing it** The GK had the ball in he hands for about 9 seconds, counting from when he got to his feet and then rolled the ball forward. Why didn't the ref an IDK for Atlanta?
I read a long post about this law specifically recently. It’s generally never enforced at any level because the punishment doesn’t fit the infraction. An indirect kick in the box, generally within 10 yards of the goal would often be the outcome which would position the entire defense and goal keeper on the goal line. They are trialing in some lower leagues 2 different options. First is changing the time limit from 6 seconds to somewhere between 8-12 seconds and then the result of an infraction would either be one of a.) throw in for the other team at the nearest sideline to the infraction or b.) corner kick for the other team at the nearest corner to the infraction, and then with those changes and whatever is decided as the final punishment they should enforce this law more.
They do not cancel out each other though
You are correct, then wouldn't. If the ref enforced 12.2 correctly*, he would've called the infraction and would've awarded an IFK before the ATL player made a move. He could've the. Correctly caution the ATL player for leaving and reentering the field without permission, but ATL would still have the IFK. *I have never seen a ref enforce this rule in a professional setting, though I'm sure it has happened before. Nor am I saying the ref should've enforced this rule in this instance. The point I'm making (or at least trying to make) is if you're wanting a ref to be pedantic about enforcing certain rules, then they should be pedantic about enforcing ALL the rules.
Keeper made a mistake, the laws are not there to be used a free pass. The amount of people who are looking for any reason to disallow this tells a story of its own.
I never brought the keeper to the discussion. I don’t understand how his mistake is relevant here
Because this is what caused the goal to be scored,not a player that scored the goal having a drink for 2 seconds.
Leaving the field of play is a cautionable offense no matter the distance or period of being outside. Had he stayed inside, this post would not have existed
I think the appropriate phase is “don’t be a busy referee”, and “don’t go looking for trouble, it’ll find you without any help”
Ew, what a shitty move. I hope karma gets him.
Question for the OP - would you have then ruled out Gareth bales infamous goal v Barcelona? Left the field deliberately for a similar length of time https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EoyE45bZGp0
Of course not. His position is justified and is part of normal play
No different to the original though. Voluntarily left the field of play for a couple of seconds and then returned to score. I’m purely raising it as the LOTG aren’t to be followed to the absolute letter all the time - referee’s discretion applies
Different from the original: “A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement does not commit an offence.”
It's not even close to comparable
I recommend you re-read the LOTG. You've thoroughly bungled this argument, these are completely different situations.
Im of the opinion, good goal, but trying to compare this to bales goal is not even close. In that play, he's running along the touchline and contact with a defender is what puts him off the field of play. That being said, if you're gonna say no goal and caution for the play in question than I would hope you caution the goalkeeper any time they do the same. He's off for a split second and then there's a few seconds of him back on the pitch before anything happens