14B.7.2 6.5 M Clarification

This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.

---

Comments about this discussion:

Started 11 Nov 03:22

Rule 14B.7.2 states that "If legal playing would have led to a direct chance to score a goal, a “6.5 m” is given.“

But how is „a direct chance to score a goal“ defined?

A direct chance to score a goal is when a player can drive with the ball towards the empty goal. But is a direct chance to score a goal also when ONE player (the goalie) is still between the attacking player with the ball and the goal? I would say yes.

 

This rule needs clarification to enable better refereeing.

Comment 11 Nov 04:25

I would also say yes. I know, that the interpretation of this rule is different in Switzerland for example compared to Germany. We have defined, that when an offensive player has only one opponent between himself and the goal and get stopped by a foul, he gets a 6.50 free shot:

Original text in german:

Folgende Situationen können vom Schiedsrichter als Verhinderung einer direkten Torchance gewertet und mit einem 6.5 Meter geahndet werden:
- Spieler wird im Torraum regelwidrig an einem aussichtsreichen Torabschluss gehindert
- Spieler kann alleine aufs Tor ziehen (hat maximal noch einen Gegenspieler vor sich) und wird gefoult (auch ausserhalb des Torraumes)
- Absichtliches Torverschieben, wenn der Gegner aufs Tor schiesst

Translation in english: 

The following situations can be judged by the referee as prevention of direct scoring and be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:
- A player is stopped in the goal area by a foul while having a promising chance to score
- The player can move alone towards the goal (has a maximum of one opponent in front) and is fouled (also outside the goal area)
- Intentional goal shift when the opponent shoots on the goal

 

Reason: If we only give 6.50 in case of there is nobody in the goal left, there is always the Situation that the second last player (lets say the last defense Player) can foul an Opponent and prohibit a Situation (one Player alone against goalkeeper) that results 90% in a goal, and the Opponent get only a free shot...

It is difficult to exactly define the rules, but it would make sense that all countries understand more or less the same under a direct chance to score. It is of course still at the discretion of the Referee.

Comment 18 Nov 17:20

Any other comments? Do all of you agree with the more detailed description of a 'direct chance to score'?

Comment 19 Nov 03:25

The following situations are are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

- An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
- An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
- Intentional goal shift when the opponent shoots on the goal

 

 

 

I removed (also outside the goal area) from the second point as I assumed that the 6.5m would be given if the player was one on one with the goalie regardless of how far out from the goalie they were when fouled by a defender.

If the player got past the defender and was 1on1 with the goalie at 2m,4m,6m out I assume that all those instances would result in a "direct chance to score"

 

I am unsure of what intentional goal shift means, Could it be reworded and I may understand the translation?

Comment 19 Nov 16:22

Good, Steven! 

What I mean with "Intentional goal shift when the opponent shoots on the goal":

E.g. the goalkeeper intentionally moves the goal in order to interrupt the game and prevent a goal from the opponent team. 

But we can also delete this point. The most important points are listed and described in a good way (thanks Steven ;)

Comment 19 Nov 17:33

The following situations are are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

- An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
- An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
- An intentional movement of the goal posts when the opponent shoots on the goals

 

I changed it now that I understand to make it a bit easier to understand as it is a fair point.

We would often give a goal shift as a 14B.7.3 Penalty Goal however the rules do state if there is ANY doubt that a goal would have been scored a 6.5 should be given so it is probably fair to keep it in.

Comment 19 Nov 18:12

Good input, thanks.

Comment 23 Nov 17:42

> - An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a
>   strong position to score
>
> - An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the
>   opposition goal with a single opponent in front
>
> - An intentional movement of the goal posts when the opponent shoots
>   on the goals

I like the first two explanations but not the last. If the ball missed
the goal only because someone moved it away, a penalty goal should be
given, not a 6.5m.

I've never seen anyone doing this intentionally. However, if that is the
case, I would add a 2 min Penalty Box for the offending player.

Comment 24 Nov 07:21

Oops, I just noticed now that the current rules say you get a free shot
when the opponent moves the goal:

"14B.8.8 Moving The Goal: If a player moves the goal, the game is
interrupted and the opposing team gets a free shot."

Of course the referee should also have the option to give a penalty goal
if the ball missed the goal only because someone moved it away. I think
we need to change this, a very simple sentence is probably best:

"14B.8.8 Moving The Goal: The players are not allowed to move the goal."

Comment 25 Nov 01:45

I think such a rule is no improvement. What happens if a player moves the goal? Does the opposing team gets a free shot or an 6.5m or is the player moving the goal send off the field for 2min? The rule you suggested Rolf says nothing about the penalty the offending player (or his team) gets! This is exactly the problem I tried to come up with in an other discussion.

Rule 14B.7.3 says that "If there is any doubt as to the certainty of a goal, a 6.5 m must be awarded as described in section 14B.7.2."

According to me this means that if a player moves the goal (whether intentionally or not and the appropriate penalty is another discussion) and

• to ball would certainly have gone into the goal -> Penalty Goal
• there is any doubt as to the certainty of a goal -> 6.5m
• the ball would have certainly missed the goal -> corner (a "normal" movement of the goal by a player)

I think with a small addition to the last bullet point of the current suggestion this should be clear:

The following situations are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

• An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
• An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
• An intentional movement of the goal posts when the opponent shoots on the goals and there is any doubt to the certainty of a goal

Comment 25 Nov 09:32

Nicolai, I think we completely agree about what the decision should be.
We just have different opinions how to write this into the rules.

Yes, indeed, I said nothing about the penalty the offending player gets.
I didn't say anything on purpose! Apart from very few exceptions, I
don't want to take away the freedom from the referee to choose a
suitable punishment by writing down additional rules. We already have
section 14B.7 which describes in detail all possible punishments and
when to apply them. In short, the categories are:

1) "normal" illegal play -> free shot

2) missed a direct chance to score a goal -> 6.50 m

3) would definitely have been a goal -> penalty goal

4) intentional -> penalty box

The rest of the rules should only say "This is legal" or "This is
illegal". Then the referee decides if the violation of the rules fits
best into category 1), 2), 3) or 4).

Adding a few examples what "a direct chance to score" actually means is
a good idea but I would not try to make the list comprehensive and
complete. The bigger the list is, the more likely people will complain
when the opposing team gets a 6.5 m for something that was clearly a
direct chance to score but not included in the list.

Comment 25 Nov 19:08

Rolf: "Then the referee decides if the violation of the rules fits best into category 1), 2), 3) or 4)."

Your 4. category "intentional -> penalty box" should be an add on to category 2) or 3)

As a referee I see a above situation and I feel not 100% certain, normally I make a time out and discuss this situation with the second referee as we have recognised (in this case no discussion with the players) before making a final decision.

 

 

Comment 26 Nov 03:51

You're right, Herbert, it should be:

(1 or 2 or 3) and in addition maybe (4)

To be complete, the "non-punishment" face-off could be included as number 0:

(0 or 1 or 2 or 3) and in addition maybe (4)

Comment 01 Dec 13:24

The following situations are are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

• An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
• An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
• An intentional movement of the goal posts when the opponent shoots on the goals

I think even if we have the third bullet point (bold) a referee can give a penalty goal. The rule 14B.7.3 Penalty Goal should be stronger than the rule 14B.7.2 6.5 M. Legal playing would not only have led to a direct chance to score a goal but to a goal. Therefore rule 14B.7.3 should be applied.

 

Comment 01 Dec 15:25

I agree with Nicolai

Comment 01 Dec 17:02

I think the original point of the intentional movement of the goal posts was basing it on the fact that there are two outcomes from the goals being moved.

1) the goals were moved but as a referee you can't be sure it was going to enter them (Possibly it was shot very much at the side and the movement of the goal made it in possible to tell where the post would have been). In thes case you are not sure it was going to be a goal and give a 6.5m

2) if it was shot into the middle part of the goal and you are sure it was going to go in you would give a penalty goal even though the goals moved.

 

This would be similar to our 6.5 and Penalty goal rules for other things

 

1) If someone has a direct chance to score but is fouled we don't know 100% they were going to score so we give a 6.5.

2) If someone makes a shot that was definitely going to go in but a foul that was committed prevented it from enterting (throwing a stick?) then we would give a penalty goal instead.

 

But I can see how point three could be confusing so it could either be removed or be reworded slightly.

 

• An intentional movement of the goal posts which a referee cannot be certain prevented the goal due to uncertainty of where the goal outline would have been.
  
  

That new wording is ok, not great, but you see what I am getting at. Possibly someone can word it a bit better? If not I suggest just take it out. 

 

Comment 02 Dec 14:43

Good, I think this should work and is absolutely clear.

Comment 04 Dec 17:07

Hi, have read Stevens sentence in the last 2 nights now more than 20 times. My Intuition says that this sentence is to complicate for non-native speakers. I hope someone can word it better.

 

Comment 04 Dec 17:49

The following situations are are a prevention of a direct chance to score and should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty:

 

• An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
• An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front

• An intentional movement of the goal posts which the referee cannot be certain prevented the goal

 

How about this? I understand this as

1) if the referee is certain that the intentional goal movement prevented the goal he would rule penalty goal.

2) If the referee is uncertain if it prevented a goal then a 6.5 is given. Would other people understand this the same way?

 

 

A further question. Should we have it as "An intentional movement of the goal posts". Surely an accidental movement of the goal posts by the defending team that prevents a goal is still a 6.5m or penalty goal.

Based on this I think "A movement of the goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain prevented the goal" would be more appropriate.

 

 

 

Comment 04 Dec 18:59

With a smile: A movement of the goal posts by the attacking team which the referee cannot be certain cause the goal" ......?

 

Comment 04 Dec 19:11

A movement of the goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain prevented a goal from being scored

?

Comment 07 Dec 18:36

May we bring the intentional goal movement to 14B.7.3 Penalty Goal. I add here in bold.

"If the defending team prevents a goal from being scored through an illegal play of the ball

or the defending team does an intentional goal movement

and if, in the opinion of the Referee, the ball was traveling directly toward the goal and would definitely have entered the goal without being touched by another player, a penalty goal may be awarded. In this case the attacking team is awarded a goal. If there is any doubt as to the certainty of a goal, a 6.5 m must be awarded as described in section 14B.7.2."

Does this cover the 3. sentence from Steven`s bulleting list 18 days ago?

The important discussion what is a direct chance should carry on.

 

 

Comment 08 Dec 11:06

I think Stevens suggestion is good.

I think it does also work if we change the rule 14B.7.3 Penalty Goal to:

 

Comment 08 Dec 11:59

I agree with Nicolai. We only need to change "illegal play of the ball"
to "illegal play", and moving the goal is very nicely included in the
rule.

Comment 08 Dec 16:19

@ Nicolai: I started with a smile! For sure this is a foul and the goal is not valid, but what is the punishment? I will stop here it was a joke.

Coming to Your last suggestion, this is extreme shorter but it suits better. I agree.

 

Comment 12 Dec 16:29

I try to summarize:

 

14B.7.2. 6.5 M

 

• An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
• An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
• A movement of the goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain prevented a goal from being scored

The ball is placed [...] 

 

14B.7.3. Penalty Goal

 

 

Comment 22 Dec 18:05

No other comment?

Remember to all discussions: "December 25 – last date to submit a proposal for voting"

Comment 23 Dec 04:38

Thanks for reminding us! It will be impossible for us to finish
everything within the next two days. I have asked the main committee if
we can get an extension of the deadline.

Comment 24 Dec 07:26

I think we can bring this to proposal.

Comment 24 Dec 16:38

Yes

Comment 01 Jan 17:24

A repost of Christians Summary

 

14B.7.2. 6.5 M

 

• An attacking player is fouled in the opposition goal area while in a strong position to score
• An attacking player on field is fouled when moving towards the opposition goal with a single opponent in front
• A movement of the goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain prevented a goal from being scored

• The ball is placed [...] 

 

14B.7.3. Penalty Goal

 

Comment 01 Jan 19:52

I agree.

Comment 03 Jan 21:48

Nikolai can you bring this to proposal?

Comment 04 Jan 04:38

I just created a proposal for this discussion.

Comment 04 Jan 13:12

Thanks to a post from Steven in a different discussion I realized that
we are creating a contradiction with this proposal.

We already have rule 14B.8.8: "If a player moves the goal, the game is
interrupted and the opposing team gets a free shot." Following this
rule, the referee must award a free shot. However, in this proposal we
say: "...should be punished with a 6.5 meter penalty: A movement of the
goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain
prevented a goal from being scored."

To get a consistent rulebook I suggest to change 14B.8.8 to:

"A player must not move the goal."

Then we can remove the goal movement sentence from this proposal. This
gives the referee again all options from 14B.7 (free shot, 6.5 m,
penalty goal etc.), according to situation.

Comment 04 Jan 14:22

I like about the current rule 14B.8.8 that it explicitly says, that the game is interrupted. Maybe we can say more generally that the player moving the goal is penalized.

I prefer if we introduce the sentence with the goal movement to ensure all referees rule such situations in the same way.

 

Comment 04 Jan 19:34

This issue with 14B.8.8 explicitly saying that the game is interrupted suggests that immediate interruption of the game is needed and that no advantage should be played. This means that "A movement of the goal posts by the defending team which the referee cannot be certain prevented a goal from being scored" can never be ruled as the game was supposed to be interrupted as soon as the goal was moved.

By 14B.8.8 saying "A player must not move the goal" it says that either an advantage will be played (allowing someone to shoot and therefore ruling a 6.5m penalty or penalty goal if so required) or if no advantage (shot taken) was achieved the game will be interrupted and free shot will be given from corner mark/goal.

 

I think perhaps "A player who moves the goal is committing a foul" may be more straight forward when determining which team gets a free shot after the goal is moved?

Comment 06 Jan 14:20

I like this: "A player who moves the goal is committing a foul."

If a referee has without doubt recognised which player has moved the goal the referee has all option of punishment open.

If a referee is in doubt which player has moved the goal or he hasn't seen the situation the referee should look for advantage and/or give a face-off.

Sometimes (depending on the current situation) a referee can solve the problem with a moved goal to ask a player to move it back without punishment and without interruption of the game. Also a question of a big or small movement and or there proper markers on the floor for the position of the goal.

 

Due to the heading of this discussion is 6.5m clarification and time for discussion is running shot I take out from here and open a new discussion for penalty goal clarification.

Comment 07 Jan 11:27

Nicolai, are You bring the matter "direct chance" with the first two bullet points to proposal? I can not find a disagree. In my "6.5 M Clarification III" I will bring Rolf's suggestion to proposal.

Comment 08 Jan 08:26

I agree that we can delete the third bullet point. I think this is another topic which does not have to be in this rule point. Another discussion has to be opened for that.

With the first two points we all agree, therefore Nicolai can bring this to proposal.

Comment 08 Jan 08:30

I agree with not brining the third bullet point to proposal.

I revised my proposal according to our discussion above.

Comment 19 Jan 06:08

Fine.

This proposal has already reached the voting stage. Nicolai it's Your proposal, You should change the status and bring this proposal for voting now.

Comment 19 Jan 06:55

 I cannot see where I can do this. Maybe I did something wrong...

Comment 19 Jan 07:05

I believe You pressed the "review"-button instead of the "vote"-Button.

Maybe Rolf or Scott are able to help.

Comment 22 Jan 12:40

 I've asked Scott for help...

Comment 22 Jan 17:44

Help us, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're our only hope.