Answer to Question Three The goalkeeper, by playing the ball (finger tip in this case), has committed an offence, having touched the ball a second from a goal kick without another player of either side playing the ball. The referee should award an indirect free kick to the opposition at the point the goal keeper touched it a second time, unless.....the second touch was nearer the goal line than 10 yards; in which case the free kick should be played from 10 yards from the goal line
Just out of interest, why 10 yards? I'm sure it always used to be that indirect free kicks for offences inside the goal area had to be taken from the edge of the goal area (i.e. 6 yards). Defenders don't have to be 10 yards away if they are standing on their own goal line. Is this a recent change?
Apologies. You are 100% correct. I was trying to convey the point that in general terms, opponents have to be 10 yards from the ball when a free kick is taken; the exception being, that if the indirect free kick is within the goal area (ie the 6 yard box), the ball has to be moved back to that goal area line.
Depends upon the "intent" as viewed by the referee. If the referee believes the defender left the field of play to obstruct Ricky Holmes, he cautions the opponent of Ricky and restarts the game with an indirect free kick to Charlton where the ball was when the game was stopped.
However, if the referee believes the opponent left the field of play as part of play and subsequently commits an offence, the game is restarted with an indirect free kick to Charlton close to the line where the offence was committed.
I could never understand why there is a need to distinguish between the two seemingly near-identical scenarios !!
Depends upon the "intent" as viewed by the referee. If the referee believes the defender left the field of play to obstruct Ricky Holmes, he cautions the opponent of Ricky and restarts the game with an indirect free kick to Charlton where the ball was when the game was stopped.
However, if the referee believes the opponent left the field of play as part of play and subsequently commits an offence, the game is restarted with an indirect free kick to Charlton close to the line where the offence was committed.
I could never understand why there is a need to distinguish between the two seemingly near-identical scenarios !!
Can the opposing player be booked in the second scenario? Or does it depend on the offence committed off the field?
Final Question of the Quiz - Number Five The referee awards a penalty seconds before the 90 minutes and added time is complete. By the time the penalty kick is ready to be taken, the 90 minutes plus added time is exceeded (time is not stopped for the taking of dead ball kicks, unless time wasting is suspected by the referee).
The penalty taker rolls the ball slowly forward and one of his colleagues, rushes from a legitimate position at the time of the penalty kick, to run on to the ball dribble it forward and score past the keeper.
At the discretion of the ref to carry on regardless of time spent (As added time is a minimum, not a maximum). As there is still a play in progress with the attacking team in the middle of their attack, a goal is awarded, followed by a centre kick restart and a more or less immediate whistle to end the game.
Surely if the ref has not blown for full time before the goal is scored then surely he has to award a goal if there is no reason not to?
At the discretion of the ref to carry on regardless of time spent (As added time is a minimum, not a maximum). As there is still a play in progress with the attacking team in the middle of their attack, a goal is awarded, followed by a centre kick restart and a more or less immediate whistle to end the game.
Surely if the ref has not blown for full time before the goal is scored then surely he has to award a goal if there is no reason not to?
Depends upon the "intent" as viewed by the referee. If the referee believes the defender left the field of play to obstruct Ricky Holmes, he cautions the opponent of Ricky and restarts the game with an indirect free kick to Charlton where the ball was when the game was stopped.
However, if the referee believes the opponent left the field of play as part of play and subsequently commits an offence, the game is restarted with an indirect free kick to Charlton close to the line where the offence was committed.
I could never understand why there is a need to distinguish between the two seemingly near-identical scenarios !!
I missed this one, but my answer would have been "Ricky Holmes scores a free kick,"
Final Question of the Quiz - Number Five The referee awards a penalty seconds before the 90 minutes and added time is complete. By the time the penalty kick is ready to be taken, the 90 minutes plus added time is exceeded (time is not stopped for the taking of dead ball kicks, unless time wasting is suspected by the referee).
The penalty taker rolls the ball slowly forward and one of his colleagues, rushes from a legitimate position at the time of the penalty kick, to run on to the ball dribble it forward and score past the keeper.
Question Four - match Incident: Ricky Holmes is dribbling the ball down the left wing, hugging the line. The opposing full back is facing Ricky. As Ricky approaches the full back, he plays the ball past him, on the field side of play. Ricky however runs off of the field of play to avoid a collision, with the aim of returning to the field of player and collecting the ball after he has passed the opposing full back. However the full back leaves the field of play and deliberately obstructs Ricky. How does the referee deal with this incident and how does he restart the game.
I thought the old "obstruction" law had gone.
The law as it stands now appears to be either a direct free kick if a player "impedes an opponent with contact" or an indirect free kick if a player "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made". So, to make an informed decision don't we need to know whether any contact was made?
Final Question of the Quiz - Number Five The referee awards a penalty seconds before the 90 minutes and added time is complete. By the time the penalty kick is ready to be taken, the 90 minutes plus added time is exceeded (time is not stopped for the taking of dead ball kicks, unless time wasting is suspected by the referee).
The penalty taker rolls the ball slowly forward and one of his colleagues, rushes from a legitimate position at the time of the penalty kick, to run on to the ball dribble it forward and score past the keeper.
What does the referee "award" ?
Play only exceeds the allotted time for a penalty, which I guess ends with the ball going dead or another player touching the ball, except if that's the 'keeper as it could touch him and still go in. Therefore, the ref should blow once the second player has touched the ball as the play in progress is no longer the penalty. Similarly, if the 'keeper saves the penalty, there's no more time for anyone to run in and score the rebound.
One thing I'm not sure of, though. If the 'keeper saves the ball by kicking it and it goes up the other end and in to the net, is that all part of the penalty and therefore a goal?
Depends upon the "intent" as viewed by the referee. If the referee believes the defender left the field of play to obstruct Ricky Holmes, he cautions the opponent of Ricky and restarts the game with an indirect free kick to Charlton where the ball was when the game was stopped.
However, if the referee believes the opponent left the field of play as part of play and subsequently commits an offence, the game is restarted with an indirect free kick to Charlton close to the line where the offence was committed.
I could never understand why there is a need to distinguish between the two seemingly near-identical scenarios !!
What about Ricky intentionally leaving the field of play without permission, should he get a caution too?
Question Four - match Incident: Ricky Holmes is dribbling the ball down the left wing, hugging the line. The opposing full back is facing Ricky. As Ricky approaches the full back, he plays the ball past him, on the field side of play. Ricky however runs off of the field of play to avoid a collision, with the aim of returning to the field of player and collecting the ball after he has passed the opposing full back. However the full back leaves the field of play and deliberately obstructs Ricky. How does the referee deal with this incident and how does he restart the game.
I thought the old "obstruction" law had gone.
The law as it stands now appears to be either a direct free kick if a player "impedes an opponent with contact" or an indirect free kick if a player "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made". So, to make an informed decision don't we need to know whether any contact was made?
The law did change only this season, whereby obstruction is deemed to take place when not contact has been made. I deliberately did not mention whether or not there was contact, so that those that responded could consider both options. On reflection, given your response, I guess I could/should have stated whether or not contact was made. Thanks for your contribution.
Question Four - match Incident: Ricky Holmes is dribbling the ball down the left wing, hugging the line. The opposing full back is facing Ricky. As Ricky approaches the full back, he plays the ball past him, on the field side of play. Ricky however runs off of the field of play to avoid a collision, with the aim of returning to the field of player and collecting the ball after he has passed the opposing full back. However the full back leaves the field of play and deliberately obstructs Ricky. How does the referee deal with this incident and how does he restart the game.
I thought the old "obstruction" law had gone.
The law as it stands now appears to be either a direct free kick if a player "impedes an opponent with contact" or an indirect free kick if a player "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made". So, to make an informed decision don't we need to know whether any contact was made?
The law did change only this season, whereby obstruction is deemed to take place when not contact has been made. I deliberately did not mention whether or not there was contact, so that those that responded could consider both options. On reflection, given your response, I guess I could/should have stated whether or not contact was made. Thanks for your contribution.
I should have said that the wording changed to emphasise the fact that obstruction is only such if there is no contact. I am not sure when the actual law changed to reflect that.
Question Three This time, an unlikely scenario (I have never seen it), but hey, this is a fun quiz.! The answer can be worked out with a knowledge of the Laws of the Game.
Match incident: Very windy day (gale force) on Hackney Marshes or Blackheath. The goalkeeper takes a goal kick into the teeth of the gale. The ball leaves the area (so thus in play). However the wind catches the ball which sails over the same goalkeepers head (ie goes backwards). The goalkeeper just gets his fingertips to the ball but can only divert it into his own goal. What does the referee award.
Best of luck!
Apologies for going back to Q3. But if the ball had blown in the net, without the goalie touching the ball, I presume it would be a goal, an own goal ?
Peter, I don't think you saw my post, could you answer please. Thanks.
Question Three This time, an unlikely scenario (I have never seen it), but hey, this is a fun quiz.! The answer can be worked out with a knowledge of the Laws of the Game.
Match incident: Very windy day (gale force) on Hackney Marshes or Blackheath. The goalkeeper takes a goal kick into the teeth of the gale. The ball leaves the area (so thus in play). However the wind catches the ball which sails over the same goalkeepers head (ie goes backwards). The goalkeeper just gets his fingertips to the ball but can only divert it into his own goal. What does the referee award.
Best of luck!
Apologies for going back to Q3. But if the ball had blown in the net, without the goalie touching the ball, I presume it would be a goal, an own goal ?
Peter, I don't think you saw my post, could you answer please. Thanks.
If the ball had been blown into the net without the keeper touching it, a corner would be awarded. Simply because you cant score a goal with a goal kick - Law 16, paragraph 2
Question Five - Answer The only match playing incident that can continue beyond the 45mins (first half) or 90 mins (total game), plus the allotted time added on by the referee, is for the taking of a penalty (Law7, paragraph 4).
For example if the penalty taker hits the goalkeeper with the kick and the ball rebounds to the penalty taker, who then scores, the goal is not allowed. This is so because the result of the penalty was that it was saved by the keeper.
Therefore in the match incident described in Question Five, the result of the penalty is known when, in the opinion of the referee, the ball is not going to enter the net direct from the penalty kick; and before the second player strikes towards goal.
That will be the final question from me. Hope it has been fun and perhaps a bit of an insight for some.
Comments
Depends upon the "intent" as viewed by the referee. If the referee believes the defender left the field of play to obstruct Ricky Holmes, he cautions the opponent of Ricky and restarts the game with an indirect free kick to Charlton where the ball was when the game was stopped.
However, if the referee believes the opponent left the field of play as part of play and subsequently commits an offence, the game is restarted with an indirect free kick to Charlton close to the line where the offence was committed.
I could never understand why there is a need to distinguish between the two seemingly near-identical scenarios !!
The penalty taker rolls the ball slowly forward and one of his colleagues, rushes from a legitimate position at the time of the penalty kick, to run on to the ball dribble it forward and score past the keeper.
What does the referee "award" ?
Surely if the ref has not blown for full time before the goal is scored then surely he has to award a goal if there is no reason not to?
The law as it stands now appears to be either a direct free kick if a player "impedes an opponent with contact" or an indirect free kick if a player "impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made". So, to make an informed decision don't we need to know whether any contact was made?
One thing I'm not sure of, though. If the 'keeper saves the ball by kicking it and it goes up the other end and in to the net, is that all part of the penalty and therefore a goal?
The ball is still going forward and time is allowed to take?
For example if the penalty taker hits the goalkeeper with the kick and the ball rebounds to the penalty taker, who then scores, the goal is not allowed. This is so because the result of the penalty was that it was saved by the keeper.
Therefore in the match incident described in Question Five, the result of the penalty is known when, in the opinion of the referee, the ball is not going to enter the net direct from the penalty kick; and before the second player strikes towards goal.
That will be the final question from me. Hope it has been fun and perhaps a bit of an insight for some.