A cantankerous publican of my acquaintance who when asked by his
barber: 'How would you like your hair cut sir?' always answered 'In complete silence'.
Barbers are well known for being chatty but I feel the sign of a good barber is
one who remembers each customer's interest, probably a sporting one, and
engages him in conversation about it while cutting his hair.
'Did you see that clanger by the Aston Villa goalkeeper earlier in the season?'
Peter, my barber asked me recently while reducing my overgrown mop to a
more acceptable trim. I had to admit that I had been sunning myself in the
Mediterranean. The hotel boasted colour television in every room, but the only
station we could pick up was CNN who were singularly uninterested in the
Premiership.
I asked him to tell me what happened.
It seems that an Aston Villa player threw the ball from a throw-in, back to his
goalkeeper Peter Enckelman. A goalkeeper cannot control the ball with his
hands if it is thrown to him by a team mate, although I have had a couple of
instances in the last year or two, where the goalkeepers have forgotten this and
picked up the ball. The ensuing indirect free kicks were mad scrambles with all
the defenders lining up on the goal line between the posts.
However, Enckelman was well aware that he couldn't touch it with his hands so went to control it with
his feet. Somehow, possibly he took his eye off the ball, it went under his feet
and into the goal. The referee awarded a goal.
There was apparently some discussion by the television commentators whether
or not the goalkeeper had actually touched the ball. My barber told me that
several of his regulars couldn't understand what difference this would make.
They were under the impression that if the ball went into the goal, irrespective
of whether the goalkeeper touched it or not, it would still be a goal.
It is not so The law quite clearly states. 'A goal cannot be scored directly from a throw
-in.' This means a throw-in from either side. So even if an attacking player threw the
ball into his opponents' net it would not be a goal. How would play be restarted?
In the Aston Villa incident,
if Enckelman had not touched the ball it would have been a comer. If the throw-in had been by an
attacking player, it would have resulted in a goal kick.
It is one of those remaining little quirks in the Laws of the Game. Until relatively few years ago a
goal couldn't be scored from a goal kick or directly from the kick-off. That has
all changed. Unlikely to happen very often but it is now permissible.
There is one fact about all place kicks
(and this is not only goal kicks and kick-offs, but includes comer kicks and direct free
kicks), that many players and supporters are not aware of. I'm sure it would sunrise my
barber's other
regulars. A goal from any of these kicks can only be scored against the opposing
team.
In our training courses for new referees, we use the
phrase, 'teams cannot self destruct from set plays.' [t would of course have to be one hell of a wind to blow the ball back into the
kicker's own goal from a kick off, goal kick or comer kick but it might be
different from a direct free kick.
Take for instance, if Aston Villa had been awarded a direct free kick just
outside their own penalty area, and instead of kicking it upfield, the defender
decided to pass it back to his goalkeeper. If the goalkeeper missed it altogether it
would not be a goal, but a comer kick.
Of course I don't suppose any Aston Villa player would want to risk it.
Dick Sawdon Smith