A&H

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

Padfoot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't bite....don't bite....
 
The Referee Store
Ganajin said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly... except: "the Law makes it clear that as either an accidental rebound or a save"...
Problem there is that "accidental rebound" is not explained... and not used anywhere else in the laws.
Punching the ball is not accident, or a save... it's a deliberate play of the ball, akin to a kick.
So, I still have a problem with the wording.

OK, get this... I had a game tonight... yellows are 2-1 up, 10 mins to go.... fast long ball goes through to red keeper, who spills it... yes, it happened AGAIN!!! I saw it happen and I saw this thread. The striker sped in, GK dived forward, reached out a hand, striker plays ball simultaneously as the keeper's fingers touch the ball. I am well positioned about 8m away. I have no idea which touch was really first.

All 22 players are expecting goal. The GK just spilled the ball. None of them have read this thread! My ARs were expecting goal. I signalled... goal. I explained this discussion afterwards to the ARs and explained that I interpreted the incident as the attacker kicking the ball a fraction before the keeper's touch.
 
santa sangria said:
I agree wholeheartedly... except: "the Law makes it clear that as either an accidental rebound or a save"...
Problem there is that "accidental rebound" is not explained... and not used anywhere else in the laws.
Punching the ball is not accident, or a save... it's a deliberate play of the ball, akin to a kick.
So, I still have a problem with the wording.

OK, get this... I had a game tonight... yellows are 2-1 up, 10 mins to go.... fast long ball goes through to red keeper, who spills it... yes, it happened AGAIN!!! I saw it happen and I saw this thread. The striker sped in, GK dived forward, reached out a hand, striker plays ball simultaneously as the keeper's fingers touch the ball. I am well positioned about 8m away. I have no idea which touch was really first.

All 22 players are expecting goal. The GK just spilled the ball. None of them have read this thread! My ARs were expecting goal. I signalled... goal. I explained this discussion afterwards to the ARs and explained that I interpreted the incident as the attacker kicking the ball a fraction before the keeper's touch.
Click to expand...

So you lied to justify an incorrect decision?

Or you guessed to avoid having to deal with the fall out from disallowing the goal?

The Law is clearly in place to protect GK's from the rash challenges of their opponents that may result in significant injury to their hands......so the "benefit of the doubt" should have gone to the GK and the goal disallowed. By allowing the goal you are encouraging the type of the challenge the Law is clearly in place to reduce.
 
Padfoot said:
So you lied to justify an incorrect decision?

Or you guessed to avoid having to deal with the fall out from disallowing the goal?

The Law is clearly in place to protect GK's from the rash challenges of their opponents that may result in significant injury to their hands......so the "benefit of the doubt" should have gone to the GK and the goal disallowed. By allowing the goal you are encouraging the type of the challenge the Law is clearly in place to reduce.
Click to expand...

LOL.
I had to "interpret" which player had touched the ball first. I gave the "benefit of the doubt" to the attacker.
If there had been any contact between the players, any danger to the GK, I may have given the "benefit of the doubt" to the the GK.
In this case the only person in the "stadium" aware that I even had the scope to "interpret" this situation in two ways and change the outcome based on changing the "benefit of the doubt" was me. Without this thread I would not have known ;)
 
santa sangria said:
LOL.
I had to "interpret" which player had touched the ball first. I gave the "benefit of the doubt" to the attacker.
If there had been any contact between the players, any danger to the GK, I may have given the "benefit of the doubt" to the the GK.
In this case the only person in the "stadium" aware that I even had the scope to "interpret" this situation in two ways and change the outcome based on changing the "benefit of the doubt" was me. Without this thread I would not have known ;)
Click to expand...

If the attacker is swinging a boot towards the same object that the GK is placing his hand on.....of course there was danger to the GK......you just don't want to recognise it because it won't fit with your chosen decision.
That's the whole point of the Law in question.....to protect GK's from that sort of challenge.
 
Padfoot said:
... the type of the challenge the Law is clearly in place to reduce.
Click to expand...
Or is the law actually a bit fuzzy about "control", punches, the GK deliberately playing the ball, "rebounds accidentally", contact between player and GK vs GK and ball etc etc etc ;) (Love you PF)
 
santa sangria said:
Or is the law actually a bit fuzzy about "control", punches, the GK deliberately playing the ball, "rebounds accidentally", contact between player and GK vs GK and ball etc etc etc ;) (Love you PF)
Click to expand...

The only thing that is fuzzy is your understanding of the law, and subsequently your incorrect decision in this instance.

The law is crystal clear about what is "in control".
 
Padfoot said:
If the attacker is swinging a boot towards the same object that the GK is placing his hand on.....of course there was danger to the GK......you just don't want to recognise it because it won't fit with your chosen decision.
That's the whole point of the Law in question.....to protect GK's from that sort of challenge.
Click to expand...
If he was placing his hand on it, or had his hand on it, that would be different...That's beyond touching - that's second base! ...it would be ball between hand and ground etc. and would certainly lead to giving the GK the benefit of the doubt... ;)
 
santa sangria said:
If he was placing his hand on it, or had his hand on it, that would be different...That's beyond touching - that's second base! ...it would be ball between hand and ground etc. and would certainly lead to giving the GK the benefit of the doubt... ;)
Click to expand...

Utterly irrelevant in terms of the Law......any part of the hand i.e. a fingertip and you are required to consider the GK in control of the ball.......the danger was there....you just bottled the decision in favour of making life easy for yourself.
You aren't the first, you won't be the last......but at least be self aware enough to recognise it.

No doubt you will be congratulated by all the other "we will twist the laws to avoid making an upopular decision" types on here. Unfortunately I am too long in the tooth to blow smoke up peoples rectum just to make them feel better.

:wall:
 
There is no 'benefit of the doubt' in these situations as the law is so clear. You are either sure there was an offence or you weren't

If you aren't sure that the goalkeeper was in possession, as clearly defined in law, then you can't penalise the player for challenging the goalkeeper when he's in possession of the ball.
 
While I find the way Padfoot expresses his opinion to be over bearing and off putting; I must say I find myself in agreement with his views here. While the Laws clearly prefer us to make a decision on a near simultaneous touch by goalkeeper and attacker, I also feel we need to shade this is favour of the goalkeeper. Note, I am not saying always give the keeper the free kick, just the benefit of the doubt in close calls.

While I cannot comment on Santa Sangria's particular match incident (really need to see each individual case), I work at grassroots level, and I fully believe that allowing too much latitude to less skillful attackers going in against keepers, can lead to dangerous situations. I have seen several wild kicks at keepers going for the ball, had to watch goalkeepers taken off in an ambulance three times....sometimes they get off lightly with just a broken collar bone!

The simple fact is, if attackers feel encouraged to go for anything against the keeper, this can lead to, not just as Padfoot says injuries to hands, but serious head injuries. If the keeper comes in way late, well, there is not much we can do (goalkeeping is inherently dangerous), but we need to breed an attitude that forces attackers to pull out of dangerous situations: and disallowing goals and giving free kicks for anything reasonably close to 50-50 will lead to a safer game for all.
 
GraemeS said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've actually addressed more than 1 concern in your question - the question of whether a fingertip constitutes control, and what to do with simultaneous touches.
Simplify. Let's get rid of the simultaneous bit for a moment.

The goalkeeper has an arm stretched out and clearly has that finger touching the side of the ball, and a second later it's kicked away. Foul or not?
Why is that any different to if his single finger is on top of the ball?

Again, your mistaken in a 'common sense approach'. For reasons I've already explained thoroughly.
 
I am revisiting this thread as I had another one of these yesterday as AR in a lower league match.
GK goes for a high palm (punch) just as attacker goes to head. Ref is much better positioned to call the incident. From my view the touches are simultaneous. Ref calls goal. No need for me to question. I support his decision.

But why?

I tried to talk to my ref about it and he didn't follow when I tried to ask whether a punch/palm is a "save". He was thinking "ball is not between hand and surface, so no control".

I am looking again at: "except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save". As mentioned above, it is a shame that these are not exemplified more in the laws. There is no definition of "rebounds accidentally". The timing is not mentioned here. This idea of rebounds accidentally is odd because "control" only matters when the GK is actually touching the ball (OK, with the bouncing/throwing ready to fly kick exceptions).

I would like the laws to be more specific here... i.e. if the ball is in the process of accidentally rebounding the GK and the GK is touching it... surely that is the implied meaning... anyway...

But, a punch, palm or attempted punch or palm in an attempt to clear the ball from the vicinity of the goal has to be classed as a "save" for our purposes here I think. Great point above about penalising a punch followed by a catch!

As a bonus, revisiting this thread also reminded me that we should always try to avoid "simultaneous" for all kinds of reasons.
 
Oh lord. I think I just noticed something that hasn't been mentioned in this thread. Apologies if this is self evident..

The law says: "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)"

"Ground, own body" are only examples. Can "any surface" mean another player's foot, head, or Luiz's derriere?

So, does a GK diving at the feet of an attacker to try to palm the ball away constitute a "save"?
Again, is punching the ball a "save"?

From the latest laws:

"Save
An action by a player to stop or attempt to stop the ball when it is going into or very close to the goal using any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless a goalkeeper within their own penalty area)."

Blimey "very close" to the goal... how to measure that? Is any action in the penalty box close enough to be "very close"?
GK dives at the feet to palm the ball close to the penalty box, ball is moving diagonally away from goal, keeper palms ball, as GK touches it, player kicks it... is the GK making a "save" because the ball is going "very close to the goal"...?
 
Matey, the definition of the save you are referring to has been used in the context and specifically relates to offside offences if I'm not mistaken. Therefore I think we are talking apples and oranges when we refer to a save and the GK in control issues at the same time. And yes to a certain degree I agree that it is hard to quantify what they meant by very close. I personally believe it was intentionally left as such to allow us referees to judge these cases in their own context (within the general stipulated rules)
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
You've actually addressed more than 1 concern in your question - the question of whether a fingertip constitutes control, and what to do with simultaneous touches.
Simplify. Let's get rid of the simultaneous bit for a moment.

The goalkeeper has an arm stretched out and clearly has that finger touching the side of the ball, and a second later it's kicked away. Foul or not?
Why is that any different to if his single finger is on top of the ball?

Again, your mistaken in a 'common sense approach'. For reasons I've already explained thoroughly.
Click to expand...
For me if keeper had one finger on top of ball he is in control if he has one finger on side of ball for split second he is about to get control but hasnt got it under control so would class it as a rebound/save/parry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top