DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 75165--------------------------------------------------
Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: RCG
Date: February 4, 2024, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
GK passes to defender, receives the ball back, mis controls, put
under pressure by attacker and GK uses his hand to hit ball out
of danger area.
Is this not a pass to GK handled? Does the GKs initial touch
negate the law?
In my mind it should be IDFK as no opponent has touched the ball
between defender passing it and GK handling it
#Post#: 75167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: ASM
Date: February 4, 2024, 3:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It should be an IDFK unless the goalkeeper has attempted to kick
it back into play (i.e. cleared it) and miskicks it
#Post#: 75168--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: RCG
Date: February 4, 2024, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
GK tries to be clever and create space. Most definitely not an
attempted clearance
#Post#: 75169--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: February 4, 2024, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like it should have been a IDFK from what you
describe.
#Post#: 75197--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: nemesis
Date: February 4, 2024, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ASM link ---
>
> It should be an IDFK unless the goalkeeper has attempted to
kick it back into play (i.e. cleared it) and miskicks it
>
--- End Quote ---
" unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick
the ball to release it into play" to quote the Law.
However bear in mind this is the same Law that says a keeper
can't hold the ball for more than 6 seconds, so I don't see why
one part should be ignored and the other followed.
#Post#: 75219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: RCG
Date: February 4, 2024, 11:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
At first I thought they were appealing for a PK, which would
have been correctly ignored. Wonder whether Graham Scott just
got lost in the moment.
#Post#: 75286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Preston NE vs Ipswich T - a question in law
DIR By: Acme Thunderer
Date: February 5, 2024, 2:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RCG link ---
>
> At first I thought they were appealing for a PK, which would
have been correctly ignored. Wonder whether Graham Scott just
got lost in the moment.
>
--- End Quote ---
Agreed. I wonder as an alternative whether Graham thought the
oncoming forward had touched the ball, thus making it OK for the
goalie to handle the ball. I cannot think why else Graham would
have ignored a fairly obvious transgression of the laws. Not
sure whether the AR on that side would have been in a position
to help but probably not.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1