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

[jamie0114]

"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).

As a former keeper I questioned this law in detail with one of the tutors when I did my course and the above is exactly what he said apart from the "finger on the side of the ball" as his definition was that if any part of the finger was in contact with the upper hemisphere of the ball (including the line) it was deemed to be in control so side would be ok. This is taking the definition to its limit but it was a fun discussion. I don't know the actual law for rugby but I guess it would be a similar definition to downward force when awarding a try.

Obviously in real life there would be no way of knowing for sure if it was that close but it is still one of the laws most players are ignorant of the detail, the general consensus among them and managers is the keeper has to have both hands on it to be in control.

 

[pankaye]

I'm not totally convinced that it's within the jurisdiction of IFAB to make up new definitions for already existing English words!.

they are not new terms they are defining rather they are technical terms.

 

[pankaye]

it is still one of the laws most players are ignorant of the detail, the general consensus among them and managers is the keeper has to have both hands on it to be in control.

you can say that again. I issued a caution earlier this season because players won't accept the fact a player doesn't need both hands on the ball for it gonna considers control

 

[GraemeS]

they are not new terms they are defining rather they are technical terms.

"Control" is a word that exists outside football and has a meaning that is different from that argued above.

I'm happy for IFAB to define what a "football" is or what a "foul" is. I'm not happy for them to pick a word that exists already and make up a new meaning for it, when the existing meaning already applies to that situation.

 

[pankaye]

"Control" is a word that exists outside football and has a meaning that is different from that argued above.

I'm happy for IFAB to define what a "football" is or what a "foul" is. I'm not happy for them to pick a word that exists already and make up a new meaning for it, when the existing meaning already applies to that situation.

many technical terms are of the same nature

especially legal terms.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

How are we still trying to understand this?

The laws state:


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when touching it with any part of the hands or arms

Where is the room for interpretation on that?

I'm happy for IFAB to define what a "football" is or what a "foul" is. I'm not happy for them to pick a word that exists already and make up a new meaning for it, when the existing meaning already applies to that situation.

I disagree with you on two points there. For one, the LOTG already have meanings that are different to the 'street' meaning. 'Deliberate' almost means careless under the LOTG, not considered and conscious. 'Kick' doesn't require any significant amount of force, unlike the dictionary definition. "Handling" would usually be done with the hands, not the full arm.

But that's not even happening here. They're simply defining it in a manner relevant to this sport - because 'control' means something different in every sport.
'Control' in league means that the ball is secure - because you can knock the ball out of the hands. If the law didn't define 'control' as a 'touch', then it would mean that players could legally knock the ball out of the keeper's hands even if he has a tight grip on it.

Control is sport specific. And to be honest, there's no dictionary definition that even suggests that what is defined here contradicts with the 'non-football' definition.

 

[GraemeS]

How are we still trying to understand this?

The laws state:


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when touching it with any part of the hands or arms

Where is the room for interpretation on that?



I disagree with you on two points there. For one, the LOTG already have meanings that are different to the 'street' meaning. 'Deliberate' almost means careless under the LOTG, not considered and conscious. 'Kick' doesn't require any significant amount of force, unlike the dictionary definition. "Handling" would usually be done with the hands, not the full arm.

But that's not even happening here. They're simply defining it in a manner relevant to this sport - because 'control' means something different in every sport.
'Control' in league means that the ball is secure - because you can knock the ball out of the hands. If the law didn't define 'control' as a 'touch', then it would mean that players could legally knock the ball out of the keeper's hands even if he has a tight grip on it.

Control is sport specific. And to be honest, there's no dictionary definition that even suggests that what is defined here contradicts with the 'non-football' definition.

Having a fingertip feather-touch the ball does not exert any "control" on the ball by any non-football definition of the term. Taking aside the hand/handS point that came up earlier, this is the specific aspect I have a problem with.

I think using a word like "control" to mean "contact" or "touching" is confusing - as I said earlier, if the laws only require a touch with a fingertip, why use the word "control" at all?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

You're getting yourself into a tangle by looking for layers that don't exist.
control doesn't have a universal definition - if you think it does then I'd argue you're incorrect. There is no dictionary definition which would explain 'control' in a relevant manner here.

Ok, to take your argument, in other scenarios we consider a player to be in control when the ball is at his feet. So would you argue that you can't take the ball from the keeper's feet?
Of course not.
So of COURSE it needs a specific definition. It doesn't contradict with anything else - not sure when you're getting that from.

And given it provides a black and white definition, I fail to see how there is any confusion. When it says, explicitly, 'Control is this", I'm not sure where the room is for 'but...'
I think the only scenario that isn't defined is what happens when the keeper handling and an opposing challenge is simultaneous.
As for why it says control - maybe it helps with other areas like bouncing the ball.

I've always argued that the laws are a joke in how they're written and always have been - I couldn't write anything this badly if I tried. But this? This part is crystal clear courtesy of actually providing a nice and simple definition.

 

[one]

I've always argued that the laws are a joke in how they're written and always have been - I couldn't write anything this badly if I tried. But this? This part is crystal clear courtesy of actually providing a nice and simple definition.

What you are referring to as crystal clear is the bit that says "A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when touching it with any part of the hands or arms" which I agree with but the definition of control for a goal keeper as a whole is poorly written (your first point).

When you have a crystal clear definition as above then why does it have to include the bits about "between the hands or between the hand and any surface" and "holding the ball in the outstretched open hand"? To confuse everyone? The latter two are closer to the traditional definition of having control of an object while just touching it is not. Although they are not contradictory, they create confusion.

 

[GraemeS]

You're getting yourself into a tangle by looking for layers that don't exist.
control doesn't have a universal definition - if you think it does then I'd argue you're incorrect. There is no dictionary definition which would explain 'control' in a relevant manner here.

Ok, to take your argument, in other scenarios we consider a player to be in control when the ball is at his feet. So would you argue that you can't take the ball from the keeper's feet?
Of course not.
So of COURSE it needs a specific definition. It doesn't contradict with anything else - not sure when you're getting that from.

And given it provides a black and white definition, I fail to see how there is any confusion. When it says, explicitly, 'Control is this", I'm not sure where the room is for 'but...'
I think the only scenario that isn't defined is what happens when the keeper handling and an opposing challenge is simultaneous.
As for why it says control - maybe it helps with other areas like bouncing the ball.

I've always argued that the laws are a joke in how they're written and always have been - I couldn't write anything this badly if I tried. But this? This part is crystal clear courtesy of actually providing a nice and simple definition.

OK, let's take your example and run with it. If this doesn't explain to you why I'm uncomfortable with this interpretation of the law, I'll drop it.

A player has control of the ball (in the real-world sense of the term of course) and is dribbling towards the goalkeeper. Attacker goes to take the ball round him as the goalkeeper dives at the attackers feet. Because of the attackers movement, the goalkeeper can only get a fingertip on it at full stretch, before the ball continues on along the same path it otherwise would have done. Attacker continues on and puts the ball in the net.

Now according to the interpretation that you've been putting forward, the goalkeeper counts as in control for that millisecond that his fingertip is in contact with the ball? So therefore, if the attacking player (who was previously in control of the ball and will continue to be in control of the ball after this point) touches the other side of the ball with his boot at this point, he has committed an offence, should be penalised and the goal disallowed?

As per the original question in this thread, how can that be considered to be in control? The GK has failed to influence the movement of the ball, he's never had control of the ball using real-world logic and has not been touched by the attacker. It feels wrong, it would cause a riot if it was actually given in a match and it contradicts a common sense approach to what "control" of an object actually is. That's why I'm uncomfortable with this interpretation.

 

[Padfoot]

Key word in the LOTG is "considered".

Forget everything else about interpretation etc etc.....the LOTG are telling you that if the GK is touching the ball with any part of the hand or arm, then you are to consider them to be in control of the ball. It is giving you clear instruction on how to interpret it.....you are to consider them to be in control.

Whether you consider that having a fingertip on the ball is "in control" is utterly irrelevant, the LOTG have made it clear that whilst officiating a game of football under the Laws, that fingertip is to be considered as "in control". Dump your personal opinions and embrace the LOTG.

 

[GraemeS]

Key word in the LOTG is "considered".

Forget everything else about interpretation etc etc.....the LOTG are telling you that if the GK is touching the ball with any part of the hand or arm, then you are to consider them to be in control of the ball. It is giving you clear instruction on how to interpret it.....you are to consider them to be in control.

Whether you consider that having a fingertip on the ball is "in control" is utterly irrelevant, the LOTG have made it clear that whilst officiating a game of football under the Laws, that fingertip is to be considered as "in control". Dump your personal opinions and embrace the LOTG.

It's perfectly relevant. First we discuss how to correctly interpret the laws, then we discuss if we think that law is suitable and can be comfortably applied to a real world match. Both are perfectly valid forms of discussion.

 

[Padfoot]

It's perfectly relevant. First we discuss how to correctly interpret the laws, then we discuss if we think that law is suitable and can be comfortably applied to a real world match. Both are perfectly valid forms of discussion.

See....this is where you are going wrong.....you think that there is anything to be interpreted. There isn't as the Law in question is quite clear about what you are required to consider as "in control".
The fact that you disagree with the Law is not relevant, you are not there to apply only the Laws that you agree with, you are there to apply all of them, fairly and consistently.

The Law tells you specifically the requirements for a GK to be "in control" of the ball. This whole debate is being fueled by people who don't agree with the Law and are desperately trying to find ways not to apply it correctly.

If people can't be bothered to apply the Laws correctly, I do wonder why they bother turning up at all.

 

[GraemeS]

See....this is where you are going wrong.....you think that there is anything to be interpreted. There isn't as the Law in question is quite clear about what you are required to consider as "in control".
The fact that you disagree with the Law is not relevant, you are not there to apply only the Laws that you agree with, you are there to apply all of them, fairly and consistently.

The Law tells you specifically the requirements for a GK to be "in control" of the ball. This whole debate is being fueled by people who don't agree with the Law and are desperately trying to find ways not to apply it correctly.

If people can't be bothered to apply the Laws correctly, I do wonder why they bother turning up at all.

This is a forum. We're absolutely and entirely entitled to debate if the laws are suitable and well written or not. If that's not the case, point me at the relevant part of the site rules? Otherwise, get off your sanctimonious high horse.

 

[Padfoot]

This is a forum. We're absolutely and entirely entitled to debate if the laws are suitable and well written or not. If that;'s not the case, point me at the relevant part of the site rules? Otherwise, get off your sanctimonious high horse.

If forum debate is all it is, then fine.....but you know as well as I, that people will use these same irrelevant arguments about "interpretation" to justify not applying the Law correctly during a game.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that debates like this can influence people to not applying the Law correctly because it puts erroneous ideas in the their heads about what their role as a referee is.

Debate is a wonderful thing, healthy and evolving, but as long as people accept the basic fact that the Law, as it is currently written, rightly or wrongly, allows no interpretation of what "in control" is. It clearly tells us what we are to deem as "in control" and whilst we may disagree with it, as much as we debate it, we have to apply it.

 

[santa sangria]

See....this is where you are going wrong.....you think that there is anything to be interpreted. There isn't as the Law in question is quite clear about what you are required to consider as "in control".
The fact that you disagree with the Law is not relevant, you are not there to apply only the Laws that you agree with, you are there to apply all of them, fairly and consistently.

The Law tells you specifically the requirements for a GK to be "in control" of the ball. This whole debate is being fueled by people who don't agree with the Law and are desperately trying to find ways not to apply it correctly.

If people can't be bothered to apply the Laws correctly, I do wonder why they bother turning up at all.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. The comments in this thread seem to me to be from refs that want to understand and correctly apply the laws of the game. I think you should give your colleagues a little more credit.

I have really learnt something here: that the laws as they are written enable goalkeepers to get far greater protection during actions with the hands/arms than I previously understood. Based on what I have learnt here, if this "interpretation" is correct then, for instance, a player can be penalised for heading the ball at the same time that the GK punches it, even if no other contact/offence is committed. This is quite a learning for me and a bit of "shock" TBH.

 

[jamie0114]

I'd class a punch as a save rather than being in control, so if they punched it straight up in the air they'd be allowed to subsequently catch it on the way down without gaving away a IDFK for touching the ball again after releasing it

 

[Padfoot]

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. The comments in this thread seem to me to be from refs that want to understand and correctly apply the laws of the game. I think you should give your colleagues a little more credit.

I have really learnt something here: that the laws as they are written enable goalkeepers to get far greater protection during actions with the hands/arms than I previously understood. Based on what I have learnt here, if this "interpretation" is correct then, for instance, a player can be penalised for heading the ball at the same time that the GK punches it, even if no other contact/offence is committed. This is quite a learning for me and a bit of "shock" TBH.

There is no "interpretation" required. That's the point. The Law is crystal clear about what you are required to class as "in control".

 

[Ganajin]

Actually, despite what Padfoot says, I for one am certainly here to further my understanding of the Laws, rather than find ways to re-interpret them.

And listening to everyone's discussion has really sorted it out for me. I would now say that I am coming down 100 per cent on the side of those who say the slightest touch of the keeper's hand or arm (just one will do) constitutes control. It is clearly impossible to give any other reading to it. And to those who say that control cannot be defined like that, I say I agree with those who say control can (as a specific football technical term) mean whatever the Lawmakers chose it to mean.

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?

This appears to be the thing causing several of us a problem. And the Laws unequivocally say YES, a slight touch gives control and NO, the keeper cannot be challenged. But if the ball on the ground merely flicks the goalie's fingers and runs free again, the Law makes it clear that as either an accidental rebound or a save, there was in fact no control, and anyway the attacker can now play for the ball (as can the keeper again).. If that slight touch halts the ball enough for the keeper to fully touch it and pick it up...well, good for them. Also the punch in the air, is a clear save and a millisecond later the ball is playable again.

For me, truly simultaneous touches would be rare anyway...one player or other will arrive earlier, even if only half a second. We are taught at referee meetings here to beware of calling "simultaneous" for double fouls (which would have to be a drop ball) and pick a direction to give the free kick. This is a variant case: either pick the keeper as arriving early (free kick) or the striker playing ball first (play on).

As pointed out right at the beginning of this thread (and this was also confusing me) this is really all that needed to be said. All the stuff about ball between hand and ground or on outstretched palm is really covered by the simple touching Law. But what is clearly happening is the Laws are giving us a few examples to clarify EXACTLY what is and is not allowed.

Congratulations gentlemen, your probing and intelligent discussion has (for me at least) made it plain what the Law should be.

 

[Padfoot]

The Law was always crystal clear....it hasn't changed during the course of this discussion.

It doesn't matter how you or I would define "control"....the Law tells us how we are to define it in this circumstance......and to be totally honest, I am amazed that it has taken 3 pages of debate for people to see what was glaringly obvious from the outset. And to that end, I maintain the debate was largely people disagreeing with the Law's definition of "control" and trying to insert their own preference.

Maybe it's just me.....I learnt a long time ago that it's a fruitless exercise trying to second guess what the lawmakers meant to say, instead of just accepting what they have said and proceeding on that basis.