Forget the penalty decision!! Was the challenge on the keeper a free kick?
Nope!
Is Mee close enough to the ball to be making contact with the keeper?
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
It does indeed say all that, but I'm not sure IFAB intended it to; because its nonesenseIt is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
Who knows what ifab intended it to mean...It does indeed say all that, but I'm not sure IFAB intended it to; because its nonesense
Mark Halsey was on TalkSport this morning talking about VAR and this incident and how he'd like to be involved. He talked utter tosh
Anyway, this was a clear PK
Another bad day for VAR
It is important to consider when the keeper is in control of the ball. Which is the reason it is perceived keepers get so much protection.
The law says the keeper is in control of the ball if he touches it with any part of the hands Or arms (except if rebounding or a save). I think pretty much as soon as the keeper attempts to catch this and he he is touching the ball any contact thereafter the referee is going to call a foul.
Obviously not withstanding any claims for a penalty once the keeper has a hand on that ball any challenges upon him become a foul as he is, in law, in control of the ball.
"If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."Law 12 states:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
- the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
- holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
- bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
So in this case it could be said that he has control at the moment he touches it briefly . . . but play restarted with a direct free kick, so which of the dfk offences did the attacker commit?
Your statement is accurate, of course . . . but did the attacker commit any of the direct free kick offences? Did he initiate any contact with the goalkeeper? As his eyes were on the ball throughout, my view is "No" . . . contact came from the goalkeeper's leap."If an offence involves contact, it is penalised by a direct free kick."
I can’t access the video, so just going f I’m the discussion and the still shot. If he moves into the path of the GK without any opportunity to play the ball (which is what it looks like from just the still), he is impeding the GK. And impeding with contact is a DFK. (I also think refs are often sloppy with worrying about whether it is IFK or DFK when it is a foul against the GK, as it is t going to matter.)Your statement is accurate, of course . . . but did the attacker commit any of the direct free kick offences? Did he initiate any contact with the goalkeeper? As his eyes were on the ball throughout, my view is "No" . . . contact came from the goalkeeper's leap.
I can’t access the video, so just going f I’m the discussion and the still shot. If he moves into the path of the GK without any opportunity to play the ball (which is what it looks like from just the still), he is impeding the GK. And impeding with contact is a DFK. (I also think refs are often sloppy with worrying about whether it is IFK or DFK when it is a foul against the GK, as it is t going to matter.)