You are the ref

Discussion in 'Referee' started by socal lurker, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009


  2. Bubba Atlanta

    Bubba Atlanta Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Location:
    Yep, Atlanta
    Also, what exactly is "a fair shoulder charge on a keeper who has both hands on the ball?" :thumbsdown:
  3. JimEWrld

    JimEWrld Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I was scratching my head on that one as well. The answer to the panel was obvious but I did not like his explanation.
  4. QuietCoach

    QuietCoach Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Location:
    Littleton, MA
    Yeah, I don't see why it should make a difference whether the keeper is in the goal area, nor whether his feet are on the ground, nor how many hands are on the ball. Once the keeper has the ball in his hand(s), there is no such thing as a fair charge. Obviously, the defense gets a free kick coming out. The only possibly-interesting question is IFK or DFK, which makes little practical difference since direct scoring is unlikely across the entire length of the field.

    I don't think question 1 is very interesting either. Of course it's a goal. Why wouldn't it be?

    The only interesting question from this set is number 2 -- clearly a DOGSO, but I was pleased to see Hackett endorsing the further caution to the attacker. I think it should have been for exaggerating the contact, rather than for demanding a couple seconds later that the opponent be dismissed. Still, Unsporting Behavior covers many sins.

    - QC


  5. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Really twisted and confusing way of saying it, but I would guess that this is intended to mean that when the keeper is outside the penalty area he really isn't the keeper anymore for purposes of what's fair contact and what isn't - he's just another player. If a field player outside the area had his hands on the ball you could fairly charge him and , through advantage, win the ball.
  6. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    While it is gracious of you to find logic in his answer, he didn't say PA, he said GA.

    (I believe the version of Law 12 that had different treatment of charging the GK in the GA last appeared in the LOTG about 30 years ago . . . .)
  7. Yale

    Yale Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    Wow, you're really being kind of nitpicky on this one, socal. But his answer is technically correct: The goal area is entirely within the penalty area, so anything that's true in the penalty area is also true in the goal area.

    Anyway, the question as posed doesn't say anything about the goal area OR the penalty area. The only thing that can be assumed from the question is that, since the keeper doesn't get charged with handling the ball, he must be in his own penalty area. We really don't know if he was in the goal area or not. So just assume it was a brain fart, and that he probably meant to say penalty area instead of goal area. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
  8. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    It's not nitpicking. Hackett made a statement of fact specifically about the goal area (which is interesting, because the cartoon doesn't mention where the goalkeeper is at all). You can't assume it applies to the rest of the penalty area, the center circle, the parking lot, etc. When a (former) high level referee makes a statement like that, people will take it as law, and probably start shouting it at their child's next match ("Hey ref! He can't touch him! His feet weren't on the ground!")

    Regarding Hackett's wording in general: keep in mind that the questions are submitted by fans, and illustrated by a comic strip artist. Trevillion, while experienced, probably doesn't use a "referee's eye" while proofreading the questions, and Hackett probably doesn't even see the questions until after Trevillion has already started working on the strip.
  9. Yale

    Yale Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    I'm not “assuming” his statement applies to anything—it's generally accepted that a player can't charge a keeper who is controlling the ball. That means the keeper is in his penalty area, and the penalty area includes the goal area. It wasn't a declaration of law, but rather a statement of fact.

    It's also the case that you can't charge at the keeper who is controlling the ball while he is standing within two yards of his goal. That's not written anywhere, but it is nevertheless a true statement, in the “All A is B” sense (that is, anywhere on the field the keeper could be standing that is within two yards of his goal is necessarily in his penalty area). Hackett's answer was perhaps poorly worded and somewhat incomplete, but you can't say that anything he said was wrong as such. I think it's very likely that he simply intended to say penalty area, and mistakenly said goal area instead. That doesn't make it any less true, however, even if the same answer could be generalized a bit more.
  10. Chas (Psyatika)

    Chas (Psyatika) Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    Club:
    Crystal Palace FC
    I seriously don't understand your reply. As far as i can tell, you're actually agreeing with me, but since you made such an effort here, i'm going to assume you disagree with me and move on.
  11. Yale

    Yale Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    True or false: It is illegal to charge the keeper when he has control of the ball with his hands.

    True or false: It is illegal to charge the keeper when he has control of the ball with his hands inside the penalty area.

    True or false: It is illegal to charge the keeper when he has control of the ball with his hands inside the goal area.

    Those are all technically different questions, but they must necessarily have the same answer. So what was wrong about Hackett's answer?
  12. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Nitpicking?

    What is wrong with the answer is that it is blatantly misleading and feeds into myths and outdated understanding of the LOTG that feed the yahoos on the touchline. The result of this play is right, but the implications of the answer are very misleading.

    Once upon a time (I believe it was removed in the '80s), the LOTG had a provision that prohibited charging goalkeeper except when he "(a) is holding the ball; (b) is obstructing an opponent; (c) has passed outside his goal-area." Sounds a lot like what our answer is saying, huh? And there are still (fortunately relatively few) folks around who think that being inside/outside the GA matters in what they do to the keeper. Alas, for our colleagues in England, there are now more.

    (And this is beyond the problem that the answer assumes acceptable the premise of the question that there can ever be a fair shoulder charge of GK holding the ball, and instead the answer makes no reference whatsoever to the fact the GK was holding the ball, but simply states the forward cannot make contact with the GK in the GK in the GA if his feet are off the ground. It is not only not unfair for a reader to think, based on the answer, that this would have been perfectly fine if it occurred outside the GA, but also that it would have been perfectly fine if the GKs feet were on the ground.)
    QuietCoach repped this.
  13. Gary V

    Gary V Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    SE Mich.
    I think we are nitpicking a little bit. I'm willing to concede that Hackett misspoke (mistyped?) and meant penalty area. I've made the same mistake from time to time.

    I also think that the wording "fair charge" was meant to convey that the contact itself would not be considered a foul in another situation - e.g. when the keeper doesn't have the ball, when it's a player other than the keeper.

    Sure, the wording on this one could have been better, but let's leave our criticism to those questions he gets blatantly wrong. It's happened before and I don't doubt it will happen again.
  14. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    You don't have to be "blatantly" wrong to be wrong and/or misleading and worthy of criticism.


    And that's one of the problem with the "You are the Ref" column. If you're not going to be clear on exactly what scenario you are answering and what scenarios you aren't answering then you will confuse more than you educate and that really isn't helpful at all.
  15. Errol V

    Errol V Member+

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Sometimes we need to put down the watch and the whistle. The purpose of the cartoon is to entertain people. Lighten up, everyone.
  16. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Country:
    Sweden
    So the, in Europe, most visible/available credible source of information about the Laws shouldn't bother with being correct? What a load of BS...

Share This Page