Why was Robin van Persie’s goal disallowed?
Please take a look at the next video, which covers Robin van Persie’s goal this weekend at the City of Manchester Stadium. The Dutch striker scored for Arsenal in the last minutes of the game, while City where up 2-0. The referee did not agree with it and disallowed it. Not sure what he saw wrong there but I find the goal perfectly valid. What is your opinion?
Add this video to your website, blog etc – copy and paste code
Similar goals that where ALLOWED!
Well this is not quite similar, but it’s TO FUNNY to miss!
{ 1 trackback }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
maybe he was too close to the keeper .. it was a hell of a risk standing at the distance he could’ve gotten a nasty injury from the keeper’s wild shot
I live in Toronto Canada…. and unfortunately I do not have the opportunity to enjoy the games live….
I just wanted to take the time and thank all those responsible for bringing this site to users like myself. This allows the entire world to be exposed to such a fantastic sport. I will be honest.. my love for football grew the most after I had become obsessed with FIFA 08 on ps3. Anyone wish to add me please do so PRINCEMALIK
As far as the goal is concerned… I think it is FANTASTIC. I will go home and show my 18 year old brother. He is a little young.. but he is quickly becoming obsessed with the sport too.
Cheers to those who contribute to the functionality of this amazing site.
Cheers.
It was disallowed because if you look in all the other similar videos the goal keeper rolls the ball in front of him there for putting the ball back into play and the ball is alive and its play on but with Van Persies the ball didn’t even touch the ground he kicked it out of the air before it was back into play, virtually kicked it out of his hands, that’s why.
If the goal keeper rolled it first like in the videos and he ran in and stole the ball and scores it would’ve be allowed. Hope this helped
Here’s an explanation from the Eurosport commentary:
“Van Persie interceptes the ball as Hart is mid-kick and knocks it into the net!! Of course the referee is not going to stand for that! a goalkeeper’s drop-kick is regarded as one motion. Surely RVP didn’t think he was the first person ever to try that?”
Source: http://eurosport.yahoo.com/football/premier-league/2008-2009/man-city-arsenal-236752.html
Looks like another one of those horribly defined lacklustre refereeing “rules”.
It’s been tried and disallowed many times. Every ten years or so this debate crops up, when a youngster who doesn’t know the rules and isn’t old enough to remember the previous instance of it happening sets foot on the pitch.
The goal was ruled out because the laws of the game make it clear that the goalkeeper is still in possession of the ball (as though it’s still in his hands) even when he’s tossed it up to take a drop-kick. It can’t be compared to those examples where the keeper has put the ball down to kick it from the turf, as he’s not in possession (according to the laws). It also cannot be compared to the infamous Gary Crosby goal for Nottingham Forest when he nodded the ball out of Andy Dibble’s right hand (you need two hands on the ball, not one).
I do remember TH14 doing the same thing against Blackburn and it was also ruled out because it was said that the ball is not in play until the keeper has completed his kick which I don’t really understand, if the ball is there to be won even if it is by an interception on a goal kick as long as it is not in the keepers hands i can’t see anything wrong with it.
I agree with Nixxy, the rule clearly states that so long as the ball hasn’t hit the ground whilst in the keeper’s possession, a player is not supposed to knick it from him. Someone recall a certain Thierry Henry?
Thankfully it didn’t count
i don’t think that it’s allowed to get right in front of the goalkeeper and try to steal the ball, i think you have to be a certain distance away, but im not sure, the goal is kinda valid if you ask me
I would disallow it as well.
Page 112 of the 2008-2009 Law book states clearly that “A player must be penalised for playing in a dangerous manner if he kicks or attempts to kick the ball when the goalkeeper is in the process of releasing it”. USSF Advice to Referee (in paragraph 12.17 states that “While players have a right to maintain a position acheved during the normal course of play, they may not try to block the goalkeepers movement while he or she is holding the ball or do anthing which hinders, interferes with, or blocks the goalkeeper who is throwing or punting the ball back into play.”.
Well thanks for the reaction guys. Although the most of you claim that the goal is not valid and bring solid arguments for this I personally don’t agree with this rule. While the ball is in the air and the keeper has no hands on it it should be considered in open play.
I mean, if a cross comes in and the keeper grabs the ball and after that loses it in the air and a player scores before the ball touches the ground, will that goal also be disallowed?
So although that Van Persie goal is not valid, I consider that the decision is not logic. The only true problem might be that the Dutch striker did not keep the distance to allow the goalie to clear the ball. But usually in this case goalies ask for a foul and the referees award it. City’s keeper proceeded with the clearance in this case. Anyway it’s an interesting debate!
Very interesting
when the keeper drops the ball to punt it its still considered as control over the ball. its the same as if van persie had kicked the ball out of the keepers hands when he was on the ground. obviously thats why the goal was taken back
& btw none of the goals that you thought were similar weret because the keeper gave up possesion of the ball by throwing it on the ground
LOL wat an argument. Obviously if the rule allows that, every player is gonna do that! Remember, there is a risk to SERIOUSLY HURT the goalkeeper!!!!
Anyway, I just realised how immature Van Persie is…