Question Number: 22301

Law 10 - Method of Scoring 10/19/2009

RE: Competitive Adult

AR of South, New England United States asks...

Scene: Competitive amateur adult league cup playoff game. Driving rain with gusts of wind and sub-freezing temperatures the whole game. Small ponds of standing water in front of both goals about the size and depth of a kiddie pool. Game is 2-2 with 15 minutes left. Single elimination.

Scenario: Attacker manages a break away, goalie comes out into the area and challenges. Attacker beats goalie. At this point, it is just the attacker and the goal. He shoots. The ball is going into the center of the goal but hits the pond of water just inches from the goal line. Instead of skipping off the water into the goal, the water-logged ball drops dead and floats in the small pond just inches from the goal line. If the ground were dry or just muddy, it would have been a goal. A defender then clears. Center ref says play on. Attacking team is livid. Goal or no goal? I think he made the right call.

The only logical argument for a goal would be that the rain was an outside agent that created the pool of water and thus prevented the goal. The counter is that both goals had pools in front of them, and both teams had their turn at the goals. Was it a good call?

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

It cannot be a goal since the ball never crossed the goal line, between the posts. The lousy field is the same for both teams (which switch sides at halftime) and apparently was safe.

The standing water is not an 'outside agent' but simply a preexisting 'feature' of this field (like a twig or a sprinkler head). But, even assuming a true outside agent stopped what appeared to be a certain goal (a dog runs onto the field and grabs the ball), this would still not be a goal. Play is stopped, the dog is removed, and the restart is a dropped ball.

Answer provided by Referee Jason Wright

As Ref Wickham said, it cannot possibly be a goal as it has not crossed the goal line between the posts and under the crossbar. We do not have the capacity to award a goal without this occurring, no matter what extraordinary circumstances may transpire.

Even if an outside agent or a foreign object stops the ball entering the goal the referee cannot award a goal if the ball has not actually entered the goal. Outside interference would result in a drop ball; a field condition (such as a puddle) typically results in play continuing.

The attacking team has absolutely nothing to complain about - I find it really surprising that they debated this.

In determining whether a pitch is playable, the location of any standing water is one consideration - naturally puddles in front of the goal can have a pretty significant effect on play, but ultimately the referee made the subjective decision that the field was safe and playable, even if conditions aren't ideal. If the teams take the field then they're accepting the field conditions and any consequences that may arise.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi
This should not even be considered. The law is very clear on this and there is no grey area or any possibility of debate. Its black and white and it even has its own Law in the Laws of the Game.
Law 10
"A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal."

No what ifs, buts, maybes, it just cannot be a goal until the ball fully passes over the goal line.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

There is no argument at all for awarding a goal, logical or illogical. There is one and only one way a goal may be awarded and it is found in Law 10:

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between
the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the
Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the
goal.

No referee is allowed to award a goal because he thinks it should have been scored or that it was unfair the ball just stopped.

I question, given the conditions, why the referee didn't abandon the game as this field is clearly unplayable

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

NO goal was scored, no foul awarded, the decision is no decision, match simply continues!
Mind you the description of the conditions sounds rather grim!
Pitch conditions, weather conditions, referee perspective, if you are playing you adapt and live with the results. It sounds kind of unsafe but I know the pressure applied to get a game in does compromise or cloud the need to not play for safety versus the need for a result.
Cheers