' Disallowed Goal '

Wrong decision by the referee, although I will give him that he blew his whistle as soon as the ball left Moore's foot and hit the player!

Bournemouth disallowed Goal tonight

https://vine.co/v/OVpIv27e56i

Unsporting behaviour.Against the rules.End of.

Law 12 states that it is an offence to stop the goalkeeper from playing the ball when he is the process of releasing it .


It clearly has not happened in this case .

Clueless the lot of you. He knew fully well what he was doing and his 'intent' was to block Moore's kick. He did it on purpose and the goal definitely should not have stood. He wasn't walking away. He turned his back on it to avoid getting it in the face instead. That was his aim all along and why he reacted so quickly once it hit him. He INTENTIONALLY did it.

'(9) If a player intentionally obstructs the opposing goalkeeper, in an attempt to prevent him from putting the ball into play in accordance with Law 12, 5(a), the referee shall award an IFK.'

The below statement is from a referee.

'The goalkeeper must be allowed space to release the ball back into play. If an opponent interferes, the keeper's team is awarded an indirect free kick at the site of the interference.

The opponent does not have to be cautioned - he could be warned first. I would give one (loud) warning. After that any player interfering with the goalkeeper's release would be cautioned for unsporting behavior (not obstruction).'

You need to learn the laws of the game.

Clueless the lot of you. He knew fully well what he was doing and his 'intent' was to block Moore's kick. He did it on purpose and the goal definitely should not have stood. He wasn't walking away. He turned his back on it to avoid getting it in the face instead. That was his aim all along and why he reacted so quickly once it hit him. He INTENTIONALLY did it.

'(9) If a player intentionally obstructs the opposing goalkeeper, in an attempt to prevent him from putting the ball into play in accordance with Law 12, 5(a), the referee shall award an IFK.'

The below statement is from a referee.

'The goalkeeper must be allowed space to release the ball back into play. If an opponent interferes, the keeper's team is awarded an indirect free kick at the site of the interference.

The opponent does not have to be cautioned - he could be warned first. I would give one (loud) warning. After that any player interfering with the goalkeeper's release would be cautioned for unsporting behavior (not obstruction).'

You need to learn the laws of the game.

Finally someone talking sense. The guy knew exactly what he was doing, very best case scenario - its exploiting a very grey rule.

Clueless the lot of you. He knew fully well what he was doing and his 'intent' was to block Moore's kick. He did it on purpose and the goal definitely should not have stood. He wasn't walking away. He turned his back on it to avoid getting it in the face instead. That was his aim all along and why he reacted so quickly once it hit him. He INTENTIONALLY did it.

'(9) If a player intentionally obstructs the opposing goalkeeper, in an attempt to prevent him from putting the ball into play in accordance with Law 12, 5(a), the referee shall award an IFK.'

The below statement is from a referee.

'The goalkeeper must be allowed space to release the ball back into play. If an opponent interferes, the keeper's team is awarded an indirect free kick at the site of the interference.

The opponent does not have to be cautioned - he could be warned first. I would give one (loud) warning. After that any player interfering with the goalkeeper's release would be cautioned for unsporting behavior (not obstruction).'

You need to learn the laws of the game.

That is very interesting but not in the Laws of the Game .

Law 12 state that 'It is an offence to prevent a goalkeeper from releasing the ball from his hands and 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 . It is also an offence to restrict the movement of the goalkeeper by unfairly impeding him (eg at the taking of a corner kick ) '.

Your description is certainly not in the Laws .

Mark Halsey stated this morning he saw nothing wrong with it and would have awarded the goal . I think it would a case that different referees would interpret the Law differently .

The law in question

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

All Moore needed to do was to take a step back.

The tactic is a lawful one and obviously the danger is that the kick is returned and the striker offside but on the other hand it don't half wind up goalkeepers and opposition fans.

If Moore was to take a step back to stop that happening it would mean he was impeded as he had to more around or back to get the ball back into play hence not allowed

Read everyone's comments and those who think it should have been award I disagree with you.

The nature of the game is to keep it flowing. Moore should have been given every chance to do that. He didn't with the Bournemouth guy being close to him, too close.

The rules are written to allow a free flowing game. The actions of that Bournemouth striker was against that.

Personally I believe the keeper once the ball is in his hands should be given the freedom to release the ball as quickly as possible. If he doesn't he should be penalised.

Read everyone's comments and those who think it should have been award I disagree with you.

The nature of the game is to keep it flowing. Moore should have been given every chance to do that. He didn't with the Bournemouth guy being close to him, too close.

The rules are written to allow a free flowing game. The actions of that Bournemouth striker was against that.

Personally I believe the keeper once the ball is in his hands should be given the freedom to release the ball as quickly as possible. If he doesn't he should be penalised.

Problem was that Moore was in his area other player wasn't and considering goalie cannot leave the area striker didnt actually stop moore from playing ball he merely turned his back to avoid being hit in face! as moore moved towards striker It was his fault if moore keeps in middle of box the player cannot batter eyelid or its a free kick as you mentioned!

Read everyone's comments and those who think it should have been award I disagree with you.

The nature of the game is to keep it flowing. Moore should have been given every chance to do that. He didn't with the Bournemouth guy being close to him, too close.

The rules are written to allow a free flowing game. The actions of that Bournemouth striker was against that.

Personally I believe the keeper once the ball is in his hands should be given the freedom to release the ball as quickly as possible. If he doesn't he should be penalised.

This is bang on the money.

Read everyone's comments and those who think it should have been award I disagree with you.

The nature of the game is to keep it flowing. Moore should have been given every chance to do that. He didn't with the Bournemouth guy being close to him, too close.

The rules are written to allow a free flowing game. The actions of that Bournemouth striker was against that.

Personally I believe the keeper once the ball is in his hands should be given the freedom to release the ball as quickly as possible. If he doesn't he should be penalised.

This is bang on the money.

Correct me if i am wrong but on every occasion striker was outside area? He is entitled to be there but he cannot lift foot or jump infront keeper! Which i dont recall him doing , he just turned his back and Moore kicked ball at him!! If striker is in box you are correct he cannot batter eyelid or he is preventing goalie clear kick as in rules!

Clueless the lot of you. He knew fully well what he was doing and his 'intent' was to block Moore's kick. He did it on purpose and the goal definitely should not have stood. He wasn't walking away. He turned his back on it to avoid getting it in the face instead. That was his aim all along and why he reacted so quickly once it hit him. He INTENTIONALLY did it.

'(9) If a player intentionally obstructs the opposing goalkeeper, in an attempt to prevent him from putting the ball into play in accordance with Law 12, 5(a), the referee shall award an IFK.'

The below statement is from a referee.

'The goalkeeper must be allowed space to release the ball back into play. If an opponent interferes, the keeper's team is awarded an indirect free kick at the site of the interference.

The opponent does not have to be cautioned - he could be warned first. I would give one (loud) warning. After that any player interfering with the goalkeeper's release would be cautioned for unsporting behavior (not obstruction).'

You need to learn the laws of the game.

Finally someone talking sense. The guy knew exactly what he was doing, very best case scenario - its exploiting a very grey rule.

It's not as if it's a one-off. He was doing it all through the game. Perhaps Moore was naiive, but the ref was right. The goal was rightly disallowed, and the booking was fully justified. Wilson had been warned enough times. Serves him right.

Clueless the lot of you. He knew fully well what he was doing and his 'intent' was to block Moore's kick. He did it on purpose and the goal definitely should not have stood. He wasn't walking away. He turned his back on it to avoid getting it in the face instead. That was his aim all along and why he reacted so quickly once it hit him. He INTENTIONALLY did it.

'(9) If a player intentionally obstructs the opposing goalkeeper, in an attempt to prevent him from putting the ball into play in accordance with Law 12, 5(a), the referee shall award an IFK.'

The below statement is from a referee.

'The goalkeeper must be allowed space to release the ball back into play. If an opponent interferes, the keeper's team is awarded an indirect free kick at the site of the interference.

The opponent does not have to be cautioned - he could be warned first. I would give one (loud) warning. After that any player interfering with the goalkeeper's release would be cautioned for unsporting behavior (not obstruction).'

You need to learn the laws of the game.

Finally someone talking sense. The guy knew exactly what he was doing, very best case scenario - its exploiting a very grey rule.

It's not as if it's a one-off. He was doing it all through the game. Perhaps Moore was naiive, but the ref was right. The goal was rightly disallowed, and the booking was fully justified. Wilson had been warned enough times. Serves him right.

did ref talk to him and warn him on the 15 odd occasions he did it during game???> after all he knew it was puttting goalie off if did he would have booked him and player wouldnt have done it again!! and why didnt moore do something about it on the other 15 odd occasions before final incident??

All Moore needed to do was to take a step back.

The tactic is a lawful one and obviously the danger is that the kick is returned and the striker offside but on the other hand it don't half wind up goalkeepers and opposition fans.

If Moore had taken a step back, Wilson wold have taken a step forward, as there was no onus on him to stand outside the penalty area!

Be easier in my book, if the rules were changed to enforce a 5 or so yard distance between the opponent and goalie, so that the game can flow easier!

This would stop the goalie having to keep on moving sideways and backwards to try and find a bit more room to kick the ball up-field, invariably holding up play and in many cases, allowing the goalie to waste time and frustrate players and fans alike!

Seeing the video - Right decision.

Just like Hazard's goal against us at Chelsea last season should have been disallowed, after Eto'o did similar.