DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45996--------------------------------------------------
Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: March 30, 2022, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IFAB cancelled their AGM earlier this month, I presume because
of Russia invasion of Ukraine although not certain, but have
published planned amendments to laws for next season -
HTML https://downloads.theifab.com/downloads/changes-to-the-laws-of-the-game-2022-23?l=en
I was a bit confused by change to Law 14.
Wording for penalties now states 'When the ball is kicked, the
defending goalkeeper must have at least part of one foot on or
in line with or behind the goal line' - i.e. the word 'behind
the goal line' has been added. The explanation is that currently
the goalkeeper would be technically committing an offence if
standing with one foot behind the line and one in front, but not
if they had one foot on the line and one in front. This part
seems fair enough.
But it then adds 'It should be emphasised that the spirit of the
law requires the goalkeeper to have both feet on/above the line
until the ball is kicked - i.e. they may not stand behind or in
front of the goal line'.
Is it just me or does what they are saying is the supposed
spirit of the law not completely contradict the amendment they
have made, which certainly does not require both feet to be on
the goal line and indeed would seem to allow both feet to be
behind the goal line?
#Post#: 45998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: March 30, 2022, 9:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> Is it just me or does what they are saying is the supposed
spirit of the law not completely contradict the amendment they
have made, which certainly does not require both feet to be on
the goal line and indeed would seem to allow both feet to be
behind the goal line?
>
--- End Quote ---
It does exactly that. Perhaps we are supposed to allow any save
made by a goalkeeper when their starting position is behind the
goal line but caution them for unsporting behaviour for an act
against the spirit of the Laws and re-start play with an
indirect free kick to the attacking team on the edge of the goal
area.
#Post#: 46000--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: tef
Date: March 30, 2022, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Readingfan's interpretation. It worries me a bit
when we start mentioning the 'spirit' of the game in Law, as
surely Law should be factual and leave everyone in no doubt
what's expected. If they want both feet on the line, why not
write that in Law? Are we supposed to allow a keeper to stand
behind the line but then say to them "you really shouldn't be
doing that"? Seems strange.
Can anyone recall seeing a situation that the IFAB explanation
describes, whereby a keeper was penalised for having one foot in
front of the line and one foot behind the line (but nothing on
the line itself)?
#Post#: 46006--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: rustyref
Date: March 30, 2022, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem before was if you took it literally a keeper should
be penalised if they had one foot behind and one foot in front
of the line. That isn't what the law intended, and by having
one foot behind they should be complying with law.
By spirit of the law, I think they mean don't let the keeper
start 3 metres back and then come charging forward as the kick
is taken, should they be crazy enough to do so, rather make sure
they are on the line. Remember that under law the keeper must
start on the line ...
The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing
the kicker, between the goalposts, without touching the
goalposts, crossbar or goal net, until the ball has been kicked.
I don't think should have said spirit of the law requires, as
the law itself requires, but I do understand the clarification
itself.
#Post#: 46008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: March 30, 2022, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> The problem before was if you took it literally a keeper
should be penalised if they had one foot behind and one foot in
front of the line. That isn't what the law intended, and by
having one foot behind they should be complying with law.
>
> By spirit of the law, I think they mean don't let the keeper
start 3 metres back and then come charging forward as the kick
is taken, should they be crazy enough to do so, rather make sure
they are on the line. Remember that under law the keeper must
start on the line ...
>
> The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing
the kicker, between the goalposts, without touching the
goalposts, crossbar or goal net, until the ball has been kicked.
>
> I don't think should have said spirit of the law requires, as
the law itself requires, but I do understand the clarification
itself.
>
--- End Quote ---
Have you not contradicted yourself there?
You suggest in the first paragraph the law has been changed so
the goalkeeper can now have one foot behind the line and one in
front of the line when the ball is kicked, but then you later
suggest the goalkeeper needs to be on the line until the ball
has been kicked.
#Post#: 46012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: rustyref
Date: March 30, 2022, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=3543.msg46006#msg46006
date=1648657974]
> The problem before was if you took it literally a keeper
should be penalised if they had one foot behind and one foot in
front of the line. That isn't what the law intended, and by
having one foot behind they should be complying with law.
>
> By spirit of the law, I think they mean don't let the keeper
start 3 metres back and then come charging forward as the kick
is taken, should they be crazy enough to do so, rather make sure
they are on the line. Remember that under law the keeper must
start on the line ...
>
> The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing
the kicker, between the goalposts, without touching the
goalposts, crossbar or goal net, until the ball has been kicked.
>
> I don't think should have said spirit of the law requires, as
the law itself requires, but I do understand the clarification
itself.
>
--- End Quote ---
Have you not contradicted yourself there?
You suggest in the first paragraph the law has been changed so
the goalkeeper can now have one foot behind the line and one in
front of the line when the ball is kicked, but then you later
suggest the goalkeeper needs to be on the line until the ball
has been kicked.
[/quote]
Keepers shuffle their feet as the kick is about to be taken.
The way it was written would technically mean that if one foot
was behind the line and the other in front they should be
penalised, which is a nonsense. One foot will often move
backwards to let the other foot and the body dive forwards.
What I think they are trying to say is make sure they are on the
line before you blow the whistle for the kick, but if at the
time of the kick being taken one foot is in front and one behind
don't worry about it, which in reality is what referees will
have been doing anyway
#Post#: 46036--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Mikael W
Date: April 1, 2022, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tef link ---
>
> Can anyone recall seeing a situation that the IFAB explanation
describes, whereby a keeper was penalised for having one foot in
front of the line and one foot behind the line (but nothing on
the line itself)?
>
--- End Quote ---
This occurred at one of the saved penalties from the Spain vs.
Italy EURO SF last summer, but was rightly (according to
common-sense) not penalised by the officials, though according
to the LotG, they made a clear refereeing mistake by not doing
so.
This is a good clarification to the laws in my opinion.
#Post#: 46038--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Ref Watcher
Date: April 1, 2022, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mikael W link ---
>
> [quote author=tef link=topic=3543.msg46000#msg46000
date=1648651650]
> Can anyone recall seeing a situation that the IFAB explanation
describes, whereby a keeper was penalised for having one foot in
front of the line and one foot behind the line (but nothing on
the line itself)?
>
--- End Quote ---
This occurred at one of the saved penalties from the Spain vs.
Italy EURO SF last summer, but was rightly (according to
common-sense) not penalised by the officials, though according
to the LotG, they made a clear refereeing mistake by not doing
so.
This is a good clarification to the laws in my opinion.
[/quote]
The intention is good but the implementation is woolly and
therefore open to interpretation. I am sure that had they put
their minds to it they could have come up with a form of words
that conveyed exactly what they intended rather than hiding
behind the "spirit of the Law".
#Post#: 46039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: April 1, 2022, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mikael W link ---
>
> [quote author=tef link=topic=3543.msg46000#msg46000
date=1648651650]
> Can anyone recall seeing a situation that the IFAB explanation
describes, whereby a keeper was penalised for having one foot in
front of the line and one foot behind the line (but nothing on
the line itself)?
>
--- End Quote ---
This occurred at one of the saved penalties from the Spain vs.
Italy EURO SF last summer, but was rightly (according to
common-sense) not penalised by the officials, though according
to the LotG, they made a clear refereeing mistake by not doing
so.
This is a good clarification to the laws in my opinion.
[/quote]
I don't have any problem with them saying a goalkeeper is
allowed part of one foot to be behind the line - the intention
is seemingly that the goalkeeper can't have both feet in front
of the line so I always found it a bit odd the goalkeeper
couldn't be behind the line before.
But the issue is this supposed spirit of the law doesn't seem to
correlate with the law as it is actually written. I don't think
you can write a law allowing the keeper to have at least part of
one foot behind the line and then say in the same breath that
the goalkeeper should be required to have both feet on the line.
#Post#: 46052--------------------------------------------------
Re: Law 14 amendment - goalkeeper at penalty kicks
DIR By: nemesis
Date: April 1, 2022, 3:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=3543.msg46008#msg46008
date=1648658589]
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=3543.msg46006#msg46006
date=1648657974]
> The problem before was if you took it literally a keeper
should be penalised if they had one foot behind and one foot in
front of the line. That isn't what the law intended, and by
having one foot behind they should be complying with law.
>
> By spirit of the law, I think they mean don't let the keeper
start 3 metres back and then come charging forward as the kick
is taken, should they be crazy enough to do so, rather make sure
they are on the line. Remember that under law the keeper must
start on the line ...
>
> The defending goalkeeper must remain on the goal line, facing
the kicker, between the goalposts, without touching the
goalposts, crossbar or goal net, until the ball has been kicked.
>
> I don't think should have said spirit of the law requires, as
the law itself requires, but I do understand the clarification
itself.
>
--- End Quote ---
Have you not contradicted yourself there?
You suggest in the first paragraph the law has been changed so
the goalkeeper can now have one foot behind the line and one in
front of the line when the ball is kicked, but then you later
suggest the goalkeeper needs to be on the line until the ball
has been kicked.
[/quote]
Keepers shuffle their feet as the kick is about to be taken.
The way it was written would technically mean that if one foot
was behind the line and the other in front they should be
penalised, which is a nonsense. One foot will often move
backwards to let the other foot and the body dive forwards.
What I think they are trying to say is make sure they are on the
line before you blow the whistle for the kick, but if at the
time of the kick being taken one foot is in front and one behind
don't worry about it, which in reality is what referees will
have been doing anyway
[/quote]
More shoddy work from the law makers.
We shouldn't have to wonder or think what they are saying.
They shouldn't be "trying to say"; they should be saying -
clearly and unequivocally.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1