Was it a foul on Simo?

[jockdodds]

View attachment 4908

"releasing the ball from his hands" Plural. As the photograph shows, Simonsen has already released the ball, as the ball is in only one hand.

But you were referring to the Forest game some time ago. Page 114 of the laws of the game states "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball.....while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand". Had the Forest player done what he did under today's rules, the referee should disallow the goal.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

In my book it was a foul, but still doesn't excuse the fact that simmo should have been aware of the players around him. AS super pig say it's goalkeeping 101. Let's say simmo had released the ball, and it had hit him (Therefore no foul), who would you be blaming then?

 

[metalblade]

jockdodds said: ↑

Here is the link;​

http://ar.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12e.pdf​

​

Law 12, page 35 "an indirect free kick is awarded if........a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands"​

"releasing the ball from his hands" Plural. As the photograph shows, Simonsen has already released the ball, as the ball is in only onehand.

Must say I agree, if the keeper had both hands on the ball we can complain but to me if a keeper has the ball in one hand he has released the ball into play. Clearly Simmo has the ball in only one hand in the act of throwing it before it hits the other player so he has released the ball. Technically no foul has been committed but I would in this day and age expect an indirect free kick to be awarded for obstruction. Having said that how many times do we see defenders shield the ball from an attacker to get a goal kick with no intention of ever playing the ball ? a clear obstruction in my book but no one ever gets one awarded.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

Except that the laws of the game also state that the keeper is to

But you were referring to the Forest game some time ago. Page 114 of the laws of the game states "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball.....while holding the ball in his outstretched open hand". Had the Forest player done what he did under today's rules, the referee should disallow the goal.

But that clause relates to the 6 second rule. The laws regarding opposing players challenging the keeper do not state anything about the keeper being in control of the ball, and what the laws consider 'control' as being.

 

[metalblade]

Quinny shoots but the keeper dives to make the save the ball squirms out of his grasp but he succeeds to get one hand on it just before Ched following up bangs it in to the empty net ........................ I'm sure everyone here would be mightily pissed of if that was disallowed because the keeper had the ball under control.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Ok going on your having one hand on the ball for a keeper restarting the play, when a keeper is in motion to kick it while he is about to drop it onto his foot he can be challenged.

He can't. Two hands on the ball during play and two hands for a keeper restarting play isn't the same.

 

[jockdodds]

jockdodds said: ↑

Here is the link;​

http://ar.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2011_12e.pdf​

​

Law 12, page 35 "an indirect free kick is awarded if........a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands"​

Must say I agree, if the keeper had both hands on the ball we can complain but to me if a keeper has the ball in one hand he has released the ball into play. Clearly Simmo has the ball in only one hand in the act of throwing it before it hits the other player so he has released the ball. Technically no foul has been committed but I would in this day and age expect an indirect free kick to be awarded for obstruction. Having said that how many times do we see defenders shield the ball from an attacker to get a goal kick with no intention of ever playing the ball ? a clear obstruction in my book but no one ever gets one awarded.

 

[jockdodds]

I think we're getting into pedantry now. I'm sure that "hands" means either hand as well as both. If we follow that argument to its logical conclusion, if a player turns a goalbound shot overt the bar using both hands, it can't be a penalty, since law 12 states "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm". Hand - singular, arm - singular, therefore using both hands can't be a foul?

 

[Darren]

I don't think it was a foul, having looked at the video and the relevant law.

The relevant law is the one quoted earlier - its a foul if a player "prevents a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands". It don't think its relevant that "hands" is in the plural - clearly if a goalie is holding the ball in one hand it would not be permissible for a player to kick it out of his hand - I think "hands" here means either both or one hand and the law is just badly drafted.

I think the important word here is "prevents". That to me implies some sort of intention - so it is a foul if a player tries to stop the goalie releasing the ball. Looking at the video, Hines has his head down as he jogs towards Simonsen and doesn't appear intent on obstructing him. On my viewing, it is Simonsen's arm that connects with Hines, much to the latter's surprise.

That's my interpretation but an alternative interpretation would be that "prevents" means any kind of physical obstruction of the goalie whether intentional or unintentional. In that case you could argue that by jogging so near to Simonsen Hines did prevent him releasing the ball and that it was consequently a foul.


It's a difficult decision and the law is ambiguous, but as people have pointed out, if Simonsen had showed one iota of awareness, we would not be having this discussion. I would think it was a fundamentlal of goalkeeping not to release the ball until you know where all the opposition players are.

 

[stannyblade]

It's a difficult decision and the law is ambiguous, but as people have pointed out, if Simonsen had showed one iota of awareness, we would not be having this discussion. I would think it was a fundamentlal of goalkeeping not to release the ball until you know where all the opposition players are.

Thats the bit for me Darren. He is a seasoned pro not a kid playing his first game. He should always check behind him foul or not. Wasnt it Plymouth's keeper who chucked the ball on to the deck and Cressy was behind him to tuck it into the net? Different circumstances I know but if he had checked behind him he wouldnt have done it

 

[Balham]

Glad Darren's taken the time to post thoughts very similar to mine. Hines didn't deliberately prevent Simonsen from releasing the ball; Simonsen just didn't know he was there - and that's where the fault lies.

 

[super_pig]

>Incidentally who are the other players you want bombed
well we've got rid of half of the 'spine of doom'.. which was simmo.. {insert loan player here} monty/quinn and henderson.. so you should be able to work it out for yourself .. actually i think quinny would do better the higher up we go as he would get more protection but he does drive me bonkers at times, what with his constant falling down.. goalkeepers will always make mistakes but simmo has a litany of them that have definitely cost us points.. i can't think of many games where i've thought he has won us the game which would be normal for most keepers.
whether it was a foul or not is moot quite frankly.. we should never been put in this position.. too many mistakes..not just ordinary ones either.. comedy howler mistakes

 

[Bergen Blade]

That's my interpretation but an alternative interpretation would be that "prevents" means any kind of physical obstruction of the goalie whether intentional or unintentional. In that case you could argue that by jogging so near to Simonsen Hines did prevent him releasing the ball and that it was consequently a foul.

This is correct. Has the referee made any post match comments about the situation?

 

[Balham]

This is correct. Has the referee made any post match comments about the situation?

I can only presume that you are joking. Referees making post match comments?!

 

[Bergen Blade]

Are they not allowed to in England? In Norway they are often interviewed about situations post match, and sometimes they can help clarify the rules.

 

[Kenilworth]

This is correct. Has the referee made any post match comments about the situation?

I am with Bergen here. If Hines had no intent to obstruct Simmo then why did his run take the path that it did? He could have jogged back to position in a straight line from where he ended up. Not behind Simmo and in the way. The video clearly shows Hines checking that the goal was allowed. He didn't go off celebrating to the fans behind the net (natural reaction) in the clear knowledge that it was a legitimate goal. He looked back to check it was given.

There was an incident in an England vs Northern Ireland game in the 70s where George Best was lurking behind Gordon Banks (I think it was Banks). As Banks went to kick the ball forward he threw it in the air (the debate here is whether this is in his control or not) as the ball out of Banks's hands, Best nipped in and tapped the ball round the keeper before slotting it into the empty net. A foul was given and the match was drawn.

The Cresswell goal (was it Dean Gurken?) was different since the keeper had placed the ball on the deck, therefore, it was in play.

In another thread someone has posted an incident that happened to us a couple of seasons ago. Reading it was where the keeper was releasing the ball - Hendo moved into line and the ball hit him on the back. The ball was put into the empty net but the goal was disallowed. I see not difference between the incident on Saturday and that one where we did not get the decision in our favour.

This one hand - two hands debate is irrelevant - a keeper is going to throw the ball out with one hand as they can get a greater distance on the throw. It's not a throw in.

Simmo is guilty of not checking behind him, though.

 

[Kenilworth]

Are they not allowed to in England? In Norway they are often interviewed about situations post match, and sometimes they can help clarify the rules.

No they don't do this in England Bergs

 

[secretchief]

Intent is irrelevent.

Hines' proximity to Simmo prevents him from releasing the ball.

Therefore it's a foul.

 

[stannyblade]

Interesting that DW has said it wasnt a foul

 

[super_pig]

>Wasnt it Plymouth's keeper who chucked the ball on to the deck and Cressy was behind him
it was karma then.. b***er

 

[Kenilworth]

Interesting that DW has said it wasnt a foul

That's DW not getting himslef into a shit storm and being professional about it.
Not so sure he would have had the same reaction had it been an equaliser and that was the final result.

 

[CG Blade]

Looking at it on the TV No it wasn't ,on Saturday to be honest I could not tell........

 

[Bergen Blade]

Intent is irrelevent.

Hines' proximity to Simmo prevents him from releasing the ball.

Therefore it's a foul.

Agree with that. If Hines had unintentionally stumbled into Simmo it would obviously still be a foul.

 

[Darren]

Agree with that. If Hines had unintentionally stumbled into Simmo it would obviously still be a foul.

I think that would be right (and to that extent I would modify my opinion above), but looking at the video again I think this is an accidental collision between two players and not a "stumbling into Simmo" by Hines. To me, After Simmo collects the ball and Hines runs past him, Hines then gets up, looks where Simmo is, puts his head down and starts to jog round him to Simmo's right. At the same time, Simmo, unaware where Hines is, takes a step back and slightly to his right and makes to throw the ball. At this point, Hines' jog connects with Simmo's arm and the latter spills the ball.

It seems to me to be a general rule that if two players collide with each other, neither intended the collission and neither acted recklessly, then it can't be a foul. Given that, it seems to me the ref/linseman made the right decision (even though 9 out of 10 times a foul would have been given).

 

[secretchief]

Given a completely irrelevent specuation about accidental collision that has nothing to do with the laws of the game, yes.

You are making it more complicated than it is.

Hines' jog connects with Simmo's arm and the latter spills the ball.

The rules state that if a goalkeeper is prevented from releasing the ball then it is a foul.

 

[Darren]

Given a completely irrelevent specuation about accidental collision that has nothing to do with the laws of the game, yes.

You are making it more complicated than it is.



The rules state that if a goalkeeper is prevented from releasing the ball then it is a foul.

Ah, but if a goalie walks into a player and that prevents him releasing the ball, then it isn't a foul. One interpetation of the video is that Hines is heading round Simmo and it is S taking the step back and to his right that causes the collision.

It was a difficult decision to make, but I think the decision is defensible.

 

[Balham]

It's almost possible to argue that Simonsen wasn't prevented from releasing the ball - he just released it straight into Hines. Hines was getting back into position, head down. No intent there - the goal could have been disallowed but it would have been harsh.

 

[secretchief]

Ah, but if a goalie walks into a player and that prevents him releasing the ball, then it isn't a foul.

At the risk of being pedantic, yes it is.

"an indirect free kick is awarded if........a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands"

It doesn't matter who is doing what and who intends to do what. If a body in the way prevents release of the ball then it's a foul. It might not sound fair and it might be a law that favours the goalkeeper. In this case it looks for all the world that Simmo is at fault and that Hines has no intent, but according to the phrasing of the law it's a foul.

It's almost possible to argue that Simonsen wasn't prevented from releasing the ball - he just released it straight into Hines. Hines was getting back into position, head down. No intent there - the goal could have been disallowed but it would have been harsh.

This is the only sticking point. The ball deviates precisely at the point of release. In my opinion it's very harsh to say it's been successfully released. If he throws it and it goes ten yards and hits someone on the back, fair enough. In this case his arm hasn't even completed its movement.

 

[Darren]

At the risk of being pedantic, yes it is.

"an indirect free kick is awarded if........a player prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands"

It doesn't matter who is doing what and who intends to do what. If a body in the way prevents release of the ball then it's a foul. It might not sound fair and it might be a law that favours the goalkeeper. In this case it looks for all the world that Simmo is at fault and that Hines has no intent, but according to the phrasing of the law it's a foul.



This is the only sticking point. The ball deviates precisely at the point of release. In my opinion it's very harsh to say it's been successfully released. If he throws it and it goes ten yards and hits someone on the back, fair enough. In this case his arm hasn't even completed its movement.

Come on, that's a ridiculous interpretation. If a player is running away from the goalie, has his back to him and the goalie sprints up to the player and collides with his back and drops the ball, are you saying that would be a free kick to the goalie's team?

Of course not. In that case, the forward cannot be said to be preventing the goalie from releasing the ball. To say someone prevents someone from doing something necessarily implies some sort of volition on the preventer's part. If I am trying to get into a nightclub and the bouncer stands in my way so I can't get through the door (whether deliberately or accidentally) he is preventing me from entering. If the bouncer is stood at the side of the door and there is a clear path for me to enter, yet I walk straight into him instead of going through the door then he isn't preventing entry.

 

[secretchief]

Come on, that's a ridiculous interpretation. If a player is running away from the goalie, has his back to him and the goalie sprints up to the player and collides with his back and drops the ball, are you saying that would be a free kick to the goalie's team?

It's not a ridiculous interpretation. It's one that cleaves closest to the wording of the law.

Ok, so my interpretation is ridiculous, but I suppose your example is completely reasonable. What is it with all these hypotheticals? We have a clear example that we've all watched. Find me a clip of what you describe and we'll discuss it. Again, you are extrapolating beyond the bounds of what we are discussing here. There's no need to get all reductio ad absurdum.

Your nightclub example doesn't stand, since Hines is not stood aside allowing Simmo to throw the ball like your bouncer, but colliding with him, which is kind of the point of all this.

Volition is not necessarily implied at all. Where did you get this from? If I try and walk through a doorway with someone standing in it and I can't get past because they are standing in it then they are preventing me entering. It doesn't matter if they are looking the other way and talking to someone else and they don't know I'm there. I'm being prevented from going through by a body.

The facticity of his physical presence prevents release. Ergo, foul.