A&H

GK in control when... touching it with any part of the hands?

santa sangria

santa sangria

RefChat Addict
So, I had women's U18 muddy conditions, striker on the break and GK both go for the ball in the area, at the edge of the area. Sliding foot and simultaneous touch of the hand on the ball by the GK. Fair challenge, not dangerous. Ball breaks for another attacker to score. I allowed the goal.

The ball was not between the GK's hand and pitch... but... I am confused by the laws on this:

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• 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 accidentally 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
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of
the ball with the hands."

This part: "or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper". Well, it didn't rebound accidentally as it was a deliberate play for the ball by the striker. Should this really have been DFK because the goalkeeper's finger touched the ball...? Is that really "considered to be in control"?

I sold it at the time... but l hate this wording... more clarification and punctuation would have been great... what are the limits here?
 
The Referee Store
no, you called this correctly IMO (from what you've said).

a touch by the keeper does not equal the keeper having control of the ball. in the instance you're talking about, the keeper should have a hand/hands/arm on a stationary ball to be considered under control
 
es1 said:
no, you called this correctly IMO (from what you've said).

a touch by the keeper does not equal the keeper having control of the ball. in the instance you're talking about, the keeper should have a hand/hands/arm on a stationary ball to be considered under control
Click to expand...
Where do you get "stationary" from? I don't see it in the laws...





(I'm gonna nip this in the bud and say the correct answer is Dunder Mifflin or Wernham Hogg. Stop sniggering at the back.)
 
santa sangria said:
Where do you get "stationary" from? I don't see it in the laws...





(I'm gonna nip this in the bud and say the correct answer is Dunder Mifflin or Wernham Hogg. Stop sniggering at the back.)
Click to expand...

it's not, but you cant have control of a moving ball between your hands and the ground can you?
 
santa sangria said:
I hear you and I am being pedantic... what do you think about the law as written?
Click to expand...

fair enough! :)

as a former keeper i think the law explains all scenarios clearly

keeper is in control if he has the ball between his hand and the floor, or is holding it in one or two hands/arms. bouncing the ball is considered retaining control. a save/parry/dropped catch is not in control
 
Eh..can I point out that between the ball leaving the keepers hand and him kicking it, it is also considered to be in his/her control, if the keeper had hand/finger on ball and was touching any other surface ground or body I would suggest you were wrong (within the law) however only you will know what you saw and what if any control the keeper had.

People raise issues here usually when they think they might be wrong or question their own decision. Only you can answer the question!
 
A Freethinker said:
Eh..can I point out that between the ball leaving the keepers hand and him kicking it, it is also considered to be in his/her control, if the keeper had hand/finger on ball and was touching any other surface ground or body I would suggest you were wrong (within the law) however only you will know what you saw and what if any control the keeper had.

People raise issues here usually when they think they might be wrong or question their own decision. Only you can answer the question!
Click to expand...
He... I'm happy with my decision... was one of the few debate points from a long week. I am really interested in the wording. Is it me or is this a bit poorly worded and open to misinterpretation: "or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"...?
 
If we take the wording as it is then if the keeper touches the ball and a player challenges him then it's a foul no more 50-50s as if the keeper touches it he is in control end of debate! You could suggest that a lot of the LOTG is badly worded!
 
I think the law as written is fairly clear and the relevant parts of it is this case are that, "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball [..] by touching it with any part of the hands or arms" and that, "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands."

If the keeper's hand was still in contact with the ball when the striker kicked it, then according to a literal reading of the law, an offence has occurred. You may believe that the definition of control in the laws is flawed and you may choose not to penalise, based on what you believe is a more logical definition but I don't think you can really debate what the wording used in the law actually says.
 
i think ive lost this thread a little as regards a keeper being in control if hes touching the ball with any part of hands/arms ... its made me recall an incident from a couple months back (which the keeper accepted my decision at the time, but was i wrong?)
ball has gone into the area, a shot has ensued and the keeper saves but is prone on the floor, the ball spinning away from him slowly...... its just gone far enough for him to not be able to get a hand on top of it but he gets a touch about 2/3 of the way up.... striker pops in and scores... l allow the goal as the keeper clearly isnt ''in control'' of that for me.
Am i reading some of the suggestions correctly here that if hes got that touch hes deemed in control ?
 
Common sense says no. Law is poorly worded. Perhaps vague so we always have the scope to protect the GK from challenges.,,
richard ramjane said:
i think ive lost this thread a little as regards a keeper being in control if hes touching the ball with any part of hands/arms ... its made me recall an incident from a couple months back (which the keeper accepted my decision at the time, but was i wrong?)
ball has gone into the area, a shot has ensued and the keeper saves but is prone on the floor, the ball spinning away from him slowly...... its just gone far enough for him to not be able to get a hand on top of it but he gets a touch about 2/3 of the way up.... striker pops in and scores... l allow the goal as the keeper clearly isnt ''in control'' of that for me.
Am i reading some of the suggestions correctly here that if hes got that touch hes deemed in control ?[/QU
Click to expand...
 
richard ramjane said:
i think ive lost this thread a little as regards a keeper being in control if hes touching the ball with any part of hands/arms ... its made me recall an incident from a couple months back (which the keeper accepted my decision at the time, but was i wrong?)
ball has gone into the area, a shot has ensued and the keeper saves but is prone on the floor, the ball spinning away from him slowly...... its just gone far enough for him to not be able to get a hand on top of it but he gets a touch about 2/3 of the way up.... striker pops in and scores... l allow the goal as the keeper clearly isnt ''in control'' of that for me.
Am i reading some of the suggestions correctly here that if hes got that touch hes deemed in control ?
Click to expand...
Doesn't need to be in control - just possession. Sounds like the goal should have been disallowed.
 
Simple wording can make the descriptions much easier to understand and leads to less confusion. Here is how it is worded now:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• 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 accidentally 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
Click to expand...
"touching it with any part of the hands or arms" covers all other text I have colored red. Changing to below makes it simpler to understand, yet the application is the same.

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
Click to expand...

@richard ramjane, unless you considered the keeper's touch a rebound or a save then the goal should have been disallowed.
 
ugh... ok i'll chalk that one up to experience then ... but in real terms he was in no way in control of the ball... however if it says a touch means that in football law, he was in control then he was.
I disallow... striker goes mad... i show him the book (LOTG) :)
 
one said:
Simple wording can make the descriptions much easier to understand and leads to less confusion. Here is how it is worded now:

"A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air"
Click to expand...
Agreed that is simple... but... it is also contradictory... or at least still confusing. If a touch is all that's needed, then "control" loses all its meaning.
My feeling is that this cannot be the intent of laws. It is poorly worded and needs a bigger fix.

Is a goalkeeper whose outstretched finger tips are feathering a ball on the ground in control of the ball? No, surely not.
When the GK punches a high ball, at the moment of contact with the ball, is the goalkeeper in control of the ball? No, surely not.

In these cases and others, the GK does not have the ball under control but is touching it. Surely an attacker is allowed to play the ball here simultaneously without committing an offence?
 
Law is quite clear.

Situation only confused by referees making up their own interpretation to suit a decision they made at the time which they know is probably wrong but don't want to admit it.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I also think the law isn't seeking to rule out 50-50 challenges - and as you describe, it's a legal goal.
Click to expand...
the law though seeks to protect players of they are in a vulnerable position i.e. keeper leading with his arms and getting to the ball first
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top