Disallowed for what?

This is possibly the most idiotic reason for disallowing a goal I could possibly think of:

Anyone else had something similar (or worse)?

You must have been so annoyed!!

So just going on the text - he dived as he crossed/shot at goal???

Any clearer on the pitch view? Could be comedy gold

A rare one but I wouldn't go as far as idiotic.

From the text it seems he went looking for a penalty before the ball deflected off him and into the goal. The offence was commited first so free kick is given.

Would love to see the footage though.

I'll try and grab the replay later.

Through ball was played in to him on about the 6-yard line, and it was the same tackle that he "dived" from that ricocheted the ball into the net

fair free kick then, he 'dived' before making connection with the ball.

I may be wrong here, but I don't believe diving requires an immediate stopping of play and I think that the goal would stand. However, the player would still probably be booked after the goal if the diving was clearcut. Any referees care to comment?

Diving is certainly a bookable offence.

I don't see why the goal would stand, the dive happened before the ball crossed the line.

Diving is certainly a bookable offence.

I don't see why the goal would stand, the dive happened before the ball crossed the line.

Also they gained an advantage from the dive. If the player wouldnt have dived he probably wouldnt have been in the position to score.

I may be wrong here, but I don't believe diving requires an immediate stopping of play and I think that the goal would stand. However, the player would still probably be booked after the goal if the diving was clearcut. Any referees care to comment?

Diving is a foul and if the attacking player was the one to dive, then there was no advaqntage to be gained for the defending team by letting play continue, so the ref would have to give a free at the point of the dive.

Hmmmmm. It's a tricky one. He would at least have to blow up before the ball crossed the line, surely?

Think of it like this: if the ball is running out of play by the corner flag, striker is chasing the ball with the defender behind him, and the striker dives with the result that the ball immediately runs out, what happens? Sure, the striker should be booked, but I bet you most refs would restart with a goal kick.

Maybe worth sending in to You are the Ref?

Diving is a foul

AFAIK diving is unsporting behaviour rather than a foul.

AFAIK diving is unsporting behaviour rather than a foul.

Quoting from the laws of the game here:

An indirect free kick is also awarded to the opposing team if, in the opinion of

the referee, a player:

• plays in a dangerous manner

• impedes the progress of an opponent

• prevents the goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands

• commits any other offence, not previously mentioned in Law 12, for which

play is stopped to caution or send off a player

and

A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the

following seven offences:

• unsporting behaviour

So basically a free is given if play is stopped to give a player a caution, so while unsporting behaviour is not explicitly menitioned as a foul, it is inferred as such.

Hmmm. I would be very interested to see what would happen in practice in this situation. I find it very difficult to imagine the goal would really be disallowed.

Hmmm. I would be very interested to see what would happen in practice in this situation. I find it very difficult to imagine the goal would really be disallowed.

By the rules of the game it should, but at least in England I'd say it would be play on and if the player were unlucky a "stiff warning".

I reckon the player could claim he meant the ball to hit pf him in such a ridiculas manner.

I may be wrong here, but I don't believe diving requires an immediate stopping of play and I think that the goal would stand. However, the player would still probably be booked after the goal if the diving was clearcut.

That is irrelevant. The attacking player committed an offense and the defending team had no advantage from it as a goal against them was scored. The game was right and the goal would be disallowed. I doubt you'd ever see an event like it though in real life!

Quoting from the laws of the game here:

and

So basically a free is given if play is stopped to give a player a caution, so while unsporting behaviour is not explicitly menitioned as a foul, it is inferred as such.

You've not quite interpreted that correctly, though you've come to the correct conclusion so it shouldn't really matter. A "foul" is punished by a direct free kick. Indirect free kicks are for "technical" offences, such as playing the ball twice, dangerous play, impeding (obstruction to the layman), and similar. Offside is classified differently, but results in the same restart. Also, the referee has to decide that play needs to be stopped to caution the offender, rather than decide that it is an offence worthy of a booking. In this case, I imagine he would... ahem.

Diving is equivalent to stepping on or off the pitch without the referee's permission. If the left back decides to change his shirt whilst his team are attacking, he should be cautioned, but he can't interfere with play whilst off the pitch, so the referee won't stop play. However, if a player being treated for an injury runs onto the pitch without the referee's permission and scores, the goal won't count. I think that example makes it clear that the decision made was the correct one.

As long as the referee blows up before the ball crosses the line it is no goal. Otherwise it is a goal and a lot of egg on his face.

But there is no foul committed is there?

Surely any playing of the ball resulting in a goal should not he considered a dive. If he has fallen in such a way as to make contact with the ball and score, then surely that would be a 'shot' and not a dive. Because the goal has indeed been attributed to the attacker (not an own goal) then the attacker has simply benefited from using his physical presence, albeit in a theatrical way, but it I'd harsh to assume tere was intent to deceive, especially considering the end result was a goal.

You've not quite interpreted that correctly, though you've come to the correct conclusion so it shouldn't really matter. A "foul" is punished by a direct free kick. Indirect free kicks are for "technical" offences, such as playing the ball twice, dangerous play, impeding (obstruction to the layman), and similar. Offside is classified differently, but results in the same restart. Also, the referee has to decide that play needs to be stopped to caution the offender, rather than decide that it is an offence worthy of a booking. In this case, I imagine he would... ahem.

Diving is equivalent to stepping on or off the pitch without the referee's permission. If the left back decides to change his shirt whilst his team are attacking, he should be cautioned, but he can't interfere with play whilst off the pitch, so the referee won't stop play. However, if a player being treated for an injury runs onto the pitch without the referee's permission and scores, the goal won't count. I think that example makes it clear that the decision made was the correct one.

So they've just gone and redefined the names of everything again have they? In my day everything against the rules was a foul, and different types of fouls caused different punishments. And yet FIFA will not consider any type of goalline technology.