I'll think one aim of the law is to protect the players. if at he moment of contact by the attacker the GK still has contact with the ball with any part of the arms or hands then an offense has been committed
GK in control when... touching it with any part of the hands?
- Thread starter santa sangria
- Start date
I'll think one aim of the law is to protect the players. if at he moment of contact by the attacker the GK still has contact with the ball with any part of the arms or hands then an offense has been committed
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Now we've come this far. Back to the OP. I thought my decision as right at the time. But if we are saying ANY contact means "control" then I was wrong and should have penalised the attacker for playing the ball at the same time as the GK was touching it.
TBH I still struggle with this being the intent of the laws... but OK
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
i think thats what we are both trying to say @Padfoot certainly thats what i am empathising with here... the fact that i will enforce things as written but my fully entitled opinion of the matter is that there will be situations where a touch in reality does not constitute ''control'' in the real world
one
RefChat Addict
Will you be happier if the law used the term "in contact with" instead of "in control of" the ball?
The laws don't always use the English meaning of a term to be the football meaning. Take the term 'gaining an advantage' for example for offside. If you were to use its wider English meaning, you would penalise many more cases. Offside has its own definition of gaining an advantage.
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
well, yes i probably would be to be honest... but i have to admit i have, up till now, assumed that in control meant just that
What i will do is get off my lazy backside and take a look and see if its dealt with in the Q&A, as therein usually lies a very good indication of how we should interpret things
one
RefChat Addict
You would then argue but when the ball is being bounced or thrown in the air, the goal keeper is not in contact with it
richard ramjane
RefChat Addict
You would then argue but when the ball is being bounced or thrown in the air, the goal keeper is not in contact with it
haha well, THAT for me is totally in control.
Presumably goalkeepers across the world have differing interpretations of how this should be called ...
Just going back to the OP for a sec though, the keeper has, yes , got a touch but it sounds like it could have been deemed as a save. Means @santa sangria called it correctly, whereas in my scenario, I didnt.
I'm not totally convinced that it's within the jurisdiction of IFAB to make up new definitions for already existing English words!
Having said that, I think everyone in this thread has missed a couple of important "s"'s in the law! To quote, with my emphasis:
I'm still not sure this matches up with what intuitively feels right, but it is at least closer....
Having said that, I think everyone in this thread has missed a couple of important "s"'s in the law! To quote, with my emphasis:
Note that in that section, there is a clear distinction between the three occasions where multiple hands/arms are referenced, and the one occasion where a single hand is referenced. What I'm getting at is the suggestion that for a "touch" to somehow count as "control", it requires BOTH hands/arms to be touching the ball.
I'm still not sure this matches up with what intuitively feels right, but it is at least closer....
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Nice one Sherlock! So, double fisted punch and the GK is in control but single fisted and he/she is not...?
(There may be traces of sarcasm in this post)
I'm not for a second claiming that it makes total sense now with this reading - but at least reading it this way rules out a single outstretched fingertip on the ball counting as control. It's still nonsense, but at least this takes a few of the most nonsensical interpretations and rules them as incorrect.
The sensible thing to do as a referee is just to take the English word "control" and apply it in the same way you would in everyday life. As I said before, it's not up to IFAB to redefine words in the English language. If they meant "A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when touching the ball with the hands.", they could have written that. But they didn't - they chose to use the words "in control of the ball", which has a distinct meaning.
So when the offside law said that a player was only offside for interfering with play if he played the ball at the same moment as a teammate played the ball you never gave offside for interfering? Or did you just accept that the law was badly phrased and implement the intent rather than the content?
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Well under the laws control is defined BY a touch - the way it's written isn't stating 'if he is control of the ball'. It's stating 'if he is touching the ball, then that's considered control'.
It can be very difficult sometimes to interpret the Laws, as they have often (as with the old offside Law) not said precisely what was meant. We cannot however just apply real world meanings. The Law is clearly giving a definition of "control" as we need to apply it in Law. Now (thanks to Graeme S) there could be a simple way to make sense of this:
If the Laws intended ANY touch by any part of the hand or arm to be control, then they merely had to cut all the stuff about the ground or any surface and just read "the goalkeeper is in in control of the ball when it is touched by any part of the hand or arm".
Since they don't, this is not the meaning.
As GraemeS pointed out the Law says handS or armS (in the plural). If we take this as meaning some part of BOTH hands or arms then the Law actually makes clears sense:
"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)"
So a hand touching the ball AGAINST the ground, goalpost, own body is control. A hand tounching the side of the ball on the ground is not (balls needs to be BETWEEN hand and surface.
"or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"
i.e. any part of BOTH hands or arms (thanks GraemeS)
"except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the
goalkeeper has made a save"
So any two handed punches or double handed saves are not counted as control.
So this part of the Law has defined what is control when TWO surfaces (hand, arms, ground etc) are involved. It then goes on to make it clear what constitutes control with less than two: control is still established when:
"• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand" i.e. Just one surface.
"• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air" No surfaces at all
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of
the ball with the hands."
This makes clear consistent sense, and also makes it clear why all the above needed to be included in the Law. So a single hand or finger holding ball to the ground cannot be challenged for. Very sensibly IMO as a goalkeeper down on the ground or lying with one hand on ball is extremely vulnerable to flying boots (which, in the end, is what this Law is trying to protect).
If the Laws intended ANY touch by any part of the hand or arm to be control, then they merely had to cut all the stuff about the ground or any surface and just read "the goalkeeper is in in control of the ball when it is touched by any part of the hand or arm".
Since they don't, this is not the meaning.
As GraemeS pointed out the Law says handS or armS (in the plural). If we take this as meaning some part of BOTH hands or arms then the Law actually makes clears sense:
"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)"
So a hand touching the ball AGAINST the ground, goalpost, own body is control. A hand tounching the side of the ball on the ground is not (balls needs to be BETWEEN hand and surface.
"or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"
i.e. any part of BOTH hands or arms (thanks GraemeS)
"except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the
goalkeeper has made a save"
So any two handed punches or double handed saves are not counted as control.
So this part of the Law has defined what is control when TWO surfaces (hand, arms, ground etc) are involved. It then goes on to make it clear what constitutes control with less than two: control is still established when:
"• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand" i.e. Just one surface.
"• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air" No surfaces at all
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of
the ball with the hands."
This makes clear consistent sense, and also makes it clear why all the above needed to be included in the Law. So a single hand or finger holding ball to the ground cannot be challenged for. Very sensibly IMO as a goalkeeper down on the ground or lying with one hand on ball is extremely vulnerable to flying boots (which, in the end, is what this Law is trying to protect).
one
RefChat Addict
If this was the case then why would we need the section that says "the ball is between the hands" in a separate point?
If we are adding a new word in there i'd say it would have been the word ANY make more sense.
i.e. any part of ANY hands or arms
I am not an English expert but to me, the person who wrote this law, given they used the words "any part" they meant any hand.
Either way as previously pointed out, not the best description of whatever they meant to say.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
I cannot see where either of you are getting this from - "touching it with any part of the hands or arms" does NOT mean it has to be both hands. A hand is a part of the hands.That's what "a part" means - "a separate piece of something, or a piece that combines with other pieces to form the whole of something." If a hand is not a part of the hands, then what is it - part of the feet?
You are obviously correct, but whichever way you read this causes a problem. I am just trying to make sense of why they have added all the stuff about held between the hand and another surface, since your definition above covers that already (in fact more than covers it, since by that definition a mere finger on the base of the ball would be enough for control - no need for it to be held BETWEEN hand and surface).
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
In the wording this term "accidentally" is not good. There is only one other use of it in the Laws (about equipment).
To be in line with the rest of the laws and to be clearer there should be a statement along the lines of:
"... the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball if they are deliberately playing the ball or deliberately touching the ball in an attempt to play the ball with any part of their body..."
How's that?
To be in line with the rest of the laws and to be clearer there should be a statement along the lines of:
"... the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball if they are deliberately playing the ball or deliberately touching the ball in an attempt to play the ball with any part of their body..."
How's that?
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Maybe it's designed to protect GK's from having their hands obliterated by an opponents boot.....by giving referees the power to penalise a challenge for the ball once the GK has made contact with it (apart from a save).
Maybe the thought process was that if players realise they are going to get penalised for those challenges where they smash a boot towards the ball as the GK gets his hand to it (clearly an attempt to intimidate the GK) those sort of challenges would reduce......
Always good for a bit of mass confrontation when the GK has had his hand kicked into the next park by an opponent who is shouting "it was there to be won..." or "he didn't have control...".
Maybe that was the plan? Make it easier for officials to remove a potential point of conflict?
Maybe the thought process was that if players realise they are going to get penalised for those challenges where they smash a boot towards the ball as the GK gets his hand to it (clearly an attempt to intimidate the GK) those sort of challenges would reduce......
Always good for a bit of mass confrontation when the GK has had his hand kicked into the next park by an opponent who is shouting "it was there to be won..." or "he didn't have control...".
Maybe that was the plan? Make it easier for officials to remove a potential point of conflict?