Both teams scored on a PK.

 

I believe that Snyder had the other goal for Ryle.

yes Snyder scored the goal off a defensive mistake leaving Scott's goal wide open for the shot. Have to compliment him on how composed he was from about 18-20 yards out on a rolling ball to put it in the open net. Morgan was very deserving of his PK as he dribbled at 4 players outside the box worked his way into the 6yrd area where he was taken down from behind right before the shot was about to be taken. The other PK for Ryle was just not smart by the Scott goalie Seay. Frustration between him and another player just caused him to pull the other player down in the box while the ball wasn't even in the play. Desite that moment Overall good game and as I mentioned before a 2-1 win that could flip flop either way.

Stepover...

 

The play that gave Ryle the PK was clearly a foul on the goalie, you say it was not smart. I'm hearing that it was a hard enough foul that the player was injured and had to leave the match.

 

You say the ball wasn't in the play so there could not have been any intent to play the ball, this appears to be a clear take down, it sure sounds like a card was in order. Seems very odd that a goalie commits a foul on a player that does not have the ball, it results in a PK, but no card was issued.

Stepover...

 

The play that gave Ryle the PK was clearly a foul on the goalie, you say it was not smart. I'm hearing that it was a hard enough foul that the player was injured and had to leave the match.

 

You say the ball wasn't in the play so there could not have been any intent to play the ball, this appears to be a clear take down, it sure sounds like a card was in order. Seems very odd that a goalie commits a foul on a player that does not have the ball, it results in a PK, but no card was issued.

 

If you re read my post, I said " The PK for Ryle was just not smart BY the Scott Goalie Seay. " I was in no way implying that it wasn't a foul, it was a stupid foul committed by Scott's goalie. The fact that the ball wasn't in the play, ( which I said ) makes it even more stupid by the Scott goalie. As far as the player going off injured, I believe there was a touch of good theatrics involved. It appeared to me from the sideline as a shove to the ground, and that was it. I would not have argued if a card had been given at all. Seems to me that you thought I was saying something other than what I said.

Was down at the JV regional final, heard several people talking. The Ryle player taken down by the SCott goalie was injured, and never returned to the game. And no card was given the the Scott goalie, just a warning and a pk.

Stepover...

 

I read your post, you will notice that I actually mentioned what you said on more than one occasion in mine. Now that I have read both of yours, I wonder why you first mentioned that the goalie pulled the player down and in the next post it is now just a shove to the ground. Maybe just semantics, but hard to say.

 

By no means was I meaning to sound like I thought you were saying something other than what you said, not my intent at all. I was actually saying that your comments about the incident left out some details; no mention of the player going off injured, or not returning to the match.... I guess this was because you thought it was just a touch of good theatrics.

Just a quick note if the ball is not in play as you say then a direct kick foul ( if it occurs in the penalty area it is a pk) cannot be given.

I think Stepover is saying that the ball was not in the play, as in the player that was taken down did not have it.

Yes in rereading stepover's post you are right.

If you re read my post, I said " The PK for Ryle was just not smart BY the Scott Goalie Seay. " I was in no way implying that it wasn't a foul, it was a stupid foul committed by Scott's goalie. The fact that the ball wasn't in the play, ( which I said ) makes it even more stupid by the Scott goalie. As far as the player going off injured, I believe there was a touch of good theatrics involved. It appeared to me from the sideline as a shove to the ground, and that was it. I would not have argued if a card had been given at all. Seems to me that you thought I was saying something other than what I said.

 

What exactly do you mean by a good touch of theatrics? Can you explain that comment? Are you saying the Ryle player, who by all accounts was injured on the play, was faking an injury? I'm not sure I follow you.

I think the term you are looking for is off the ball foul. As stated prior if the ball is not in play you can't award a PK.

I'm still confused, it would be nice for Stepover to clearly explain his,

"Frustration between him and another player just caused him to pull the other player down in the box while the ball wasn't even in the play."

 

Was the ball still live between the playing lines on the field somewhere, or was the ball outside the touchlines = out of play when the foul occurred?

 

If the ball was out of play, ball out side of the touch lines when the foul occurred the PK restart was incorrect. Way to many referees continue to make mistakes on restarts, no excuse read and know the rule book.

I'm still confused, it would be nice for Stepover to clearly explain his,

"Frustration between him and another player just caused him to pull the other player down in the box while the ball wasn't even in the play."

 

Was the ball still live between the playing lines on the field somewhere, or was the ball outside the touchlines = out of play when the foul occurred?

 

If the ball was out of play, ball out side of the touch lines when the foul occurred the PK restart was incorrect. Way to many referees continue to make mistakes on restarts, no excuse read and know the rule book.

 

The ball was in play, towards the right side of the 6rd box. The incident happened on the left side of six yard box. the ball was in no way a part of what happened. my estimates on where about everything occoured is probably off, it was just the only way I could thing to explain it.

What exactly do you mean by a good touch of theatrics? Can you explain that comment? Are you saying the Ryle player, who by all accounts was injured on the play, was faking an injury? I'm not sure I follow you.

 

 

From what I saw, it looked like they both were tangled up which was caused by the goalie Seay for going towards the player, then as that happened the Ryle player was " pulled/shoved " to the ground by the Scott goalie. Did I think it was a foul? certainly, a card? certainly, in some cases maybe even a red, depending on the referee. Do I think that the player was seriously injured, from my point of view I would really doubt that. I could be wrong, but to me it looked as they fell to the ground that was simply it.

Stepover thank you for clarifying. Based on your description of the play the referee did use the correct restart, which would be a PK.