Thoughts? Does this qualify as challenging the keeper while he has the ball?
The goal stood fwiw.
The goal stood fwiw.
That would suggest we should be penalising EVERY slight contact made with a GK who has possession of the ball. We absolutely don't do that as a matter of course ... so unless you believe that the contact made in this instance caused the GK to spill the ball then this is not a situation to bail him out for his theatrics / stupidityWrong in law to allow the goal in my opinion given 'A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)'. Is it a direct or indirect free kick though, I think I'd be going indirect for a challenge like that.
If you think it's a foul with contact then DFK. it would only be IDK if no contact on which case... no foul in this situation.Wrong in law to allow the goal in my opinion given 'A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s)'. Is it a direct or indirect free kick though, I think I'd be going indirect for a challenge like that.
The issue is the statement about not challenging a keeper in control of the ball with their hands comes under indirect free kicks which makes it appear a separate type of offence. I think in this situation it's possible to challenge in a manner that is not careless etc but still needs to be penalised. I can understand why a DFK might be more what we would expect given there's contact.If you think it's a foul with contact then DFK. it would only be IDK if no contact on which case... no foul in this situation.
It doesn’t have to be careless if it is considered challenging the GK in possession for the ball. I really think the R can reasonably decide this either way,Does it reach the threshold for “careless”.
IMHO no.
GK drops the ball deliberately. If anything the GK actions could also justify a YC for USB but the goal is probably enough.
Excellent scenario question!Changing the scenario a little ….
What would you do if:
Is this not double handling from the keeper, and therefore warrants an IDFK?
- Striker bumps the keeper (as per video)
- Keeper falls to ground and drops the ball (as per video)
- Keeper regathers ball
Surely it’s either a trifling challenge or then careless (offence) etc…It doesn’t have to be careless if it is considered challenging the GK in possession for the ball. I really think the R can reasonably decide this either way,
If the R considers it a challenge, then it’s an IFK. The argument in favor would be he didn’t slow down fast enough and bumped the GK.
if the R considers it not a challenge but a trifling bump, then it’s nothing. The argument for that is the contact is so minimal and the GK flings himself to the ground (which could easily be a caution for simulation) and in doing so causes himself to lose the ball.
i don’t think it is a question of law, but a question of judgment by the R. And it’s the kind of judgment that can be influenced by what else has happened in the game. We don’t know what happened before.