You Be The Ref - Bournemouth's disallowed goal

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

and the goalkeeper had released the ball

Doesn't matter - by that logic a player could head the ball out of the goalkeeprs hands as soon as he went to kick it. I believe that used to be the case?

The player must not hinder the kicking or throwing (distribution process) of the kick, that includes the motion between the ball going from the hands to the feet.

 

[Everest]

Doesn't matter - by that logic a player could head the ball out of the goalkeeprs hands as soon as he went to kick it. I believe that used to be the case?

The player must not hinder the kicking or throwing (distribution process) of the kick, that includes the motion between the ball going from the hands to the feet.

Bloody hell, I agree with you there!

The ball is regarded to be "in hand" and under the keeper's control until he has kicked it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The keeper quite deliberately chose to kick the ball where Wilson was standing. He didn't need to - he could have moved along the area, but he kicked it at Wilson on purpose.

Wilson was being a bit of a dick , but he was standing still a long way from the keeper before the ball was kicked at him.

Definitely a goal in my book. The keeper would have deserved it for behaving like an arse.

 

[Flex Your Head]

If the keeper had any doubt about getting the ball past the opposing player, he could have moved. He chose not to and slammed the ball in to a stationary player who was merely 'in the way'. I think the goal should have stood, but even if not, the Bournemouth player shouldn't have been booked.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Bloody hell, I agree with you there!

The ball is regarded to be "in hand" and under the keeper's control until he has kicked it.

Jesus. So do I.


This better now becoming a regular thing.

 

[fat old seagull]

My guess is that the referee thought Wilson was closer to the keeper than he actually was. Not so easy to judge distances when you are head on rather than side on. If Wilson had been a yard in front I'd have agreed with the ref, but have to say, looking at the vid I'd have given a goal.

 

[Hamilton]

Looking at it, the striker is not closing the keeper down. In fact, before the keeper releases the ball to kick it he's a good 2 metres away. If anything, the keeper strikes it at the Bournemouth player.

How he deserved to be shown a yellow card for that is not clear at all. For being on the pitch and near the keeper?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I believe the ref is wrong. The player, whilst willingly trying to put the keeper off, did not make strides to block the kick. The keeper cocked up.

The goal should have stood.

 

[Everest]

A bit more of the build up to it.

Wilson was the one that moved in front of Moore originally (not too close though).
Reinforces my view it was a good call.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

He stood there and shuffled a bit. The keeper could easily have avoided kicking it at him.

 

[Everest]

Yes he could BoF. But why should he?
The ball hitting Wilson is proof enough that he was hindering Moore from clearing the ball from where he was standing.
Wilson knew what he was doing. It's up to the opposition to move, not the keeper.

 

[Acker79]

It's not really a disallowed goal. It's no more a disallowed goal than those instance when play is stopped for offside, the defence stands still and the attacker decides "screw it, I'm gonna put it in the goal anyway because that makes me cool". The whistle had gone, the goalkeeper stopped trying to stop him, and the attacker's body language shows he knew it wouldn't count. Play was stopped before there was a goal to disallow.

 

[mune ni kamome]

Goodness knows what Alex Dawson would think of this

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

**** them. We have had so many dodgy decisions v that lot i couldnt give a shit.

 

[Driver8]

Pretty sure Hoops would have let that stand, and probably sent off the keeper too.

 

[nwgull]

**** them. Bournemouth had a ridiculous red card decision go for them in the first minute of their game against Watford a few weeks ago.

 

[Harry H]

Should have been a goal.

 

[glasfryn]

Doesn't matter - by that logic a player could head the ball out of the goalkeeprs hands as soon as he went to kick it. I believe that used to be the case?

The player must not hinder the kicking or throwing (distribution process) of the kick, that includes the motion between the ball going from the hands to the feet.

the outfield player was just standing there
the keeper did not have to kick it at him and he had released the ball +the player was not even facing him
the way I see it is once the ball has left the keepers hands the ball is in play and in this case he did not hinder the distribution at all
there was nothing to stop the keeper stepping sideways and kicking the ball....................oh no the idiot had to kick it against the player.
its a goal

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Just by standing their the striker knew he would force the keeper to go around him, hence he hinders the normal course of what the 'keeper would have done. Having his back turned is neither here nor there IMO, he's still looking at the keeper so he might as well be face on anyway.

Agree with this entirely

 

[Brighton Boy]

Should be a goal. If they don't want that to happen then have a rule where player must be 10 yards away when the keeper has it in his hands.

A free kick has players 10 yards back and the walls job is to block the kick. If they block is it it retaken......no.

Once the keeper goes to kick it the ball it is in play and isn't it the other teams job to tackle, block or intercept the ball and so it should be allowed as no rule regarding distance from keeper is in place.