IDFK (not) Awarded Against GK - A-League
- Thread starter Redster
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
i reckon they were appealing for a goal
I assume you are suggesting an IDFK for the GK touching the ball again with the hand after releasing it from his control??
If so, I think you'd be wrong in law to penalise this:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save
For me, I dont think he holds the ball long enough to be considered in control, beyond the save part, and as such I've no problem with what he does.
I am sure we have debated this before many times and for me this comfortably sits within the intent of the law and to top that off, the old saying what football expects and spirit of the law.
If so, I think you'd be wrong in law to penalise this:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper
has made a save
For me, I dont think he holds the ball long enough to be considered in control, beyond the save part, and as such I've no problem with what he does.
I am sure we have debated this before many times and for me this comfortably sits within the intent of the law and to top that off, the old saying what football expects and spirit of the law.
IMO he absolutely does. he has the ball in two hands while he is stationary and he chooses to take both hands off the ball and then picks it back up again. none of that was caused by his actions making the save, moving/getting up or because he dropped it accidentally
yeah for sure, but he makes the save, and completes it, and the ball is entirely in his control...and then he releases it
His hands are on the ball for around 1 second. He stops the Ballz almost immediately takes his hands away.
The replay shows it more clearly but the close up sees him take his hands off almost immediately after the ball is stopped. I play/paused/play/paused to make sure I wasn't going mad and only 1 second elapses, so I'll take a 2 second max to account for milliseconds either side.
I'm not having that as an offence, or even close to the intent of the law.
Edit it's not a replay. That's me repeating it.
Last edited:
IMO the time is (almost) irrelevant, it's the fact he's in total control with the ball in hand and consciously releases it under no pressure or for no real reason and then picks it back up again
you're right about the intent of the law, but I think he's definitely, in line with the law, committing an offence. I'm never calling it mind
A save does require some element of control as touching the ball with any part of the hand is technically in control.
He has to ensure the ball has stopped moving before letting go as it is so close to the goal line, which he does in a way that's ok for me.
Don't think we are going to agree. I only see a save and I don't think I am going to change your mind nor you mine
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I’m also happy here.
I think this is different from Loris (?) in the cup final stopping a ball with his hands away from goal line and then picking it up (no save) vs here (save).
I think this is different from Loris (?) in the cup final stopping a ball with his hands away from goal line and then picking it up (no save) vs here (save).
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
To me this one where looking at the SOTG helps. No way, no how is this what the Law has in mind with picking up a ball that has been released. I don’t think this GK offense is much different from thinking about pass back offenses--they aren’t something we should look for, but something that jumps out and grabs us. This ain’t it.
I saw a L4 referee I was observing penalise something not too dissimilar to this a few years ago. It surprised, and perhaps shocked, everyone, a goal was scored from the IDFK and what had to that point been a very good performance absolutely fell apart.
My advice would be don't go looking for problems. You really don't want one team fuming at you and the other team laughing at you, it won't end well.
My advice would be don't go looking for problems. You really don't want one team fuming at you and the other team laughing at you, it won't end well.
The word save is joined with the word rebound. The
Here he puts the ball between his hand and the ground for an extended period during which the ball cannot be played by any attacker. This was not a rebound.
He then removes his hands and waits to be approached by an attacker before handling the ball again.
Here he puts the ball between his hand and the ground for an extended period during which the ball cannot be played by any attacker. This was not a rebound.
He then removes his hands and waits to be approached by an attacker before handling the ball again.
This is nothing to do with rebounds. It's an OR situation which means they are independent scenarios of each other.
If I recall correctly, and I will have to do some digging, there was a clarification / circular / explanation about this.
Sure the old wording talked about parrying as well and the whatever it was came from that.
Actually, on a re-read there is an or between rebounds and saves. Fair point.
If you can find that circular that would be grand!
Still, this blokes hands are on the ball for a fair while. Surely we can't think that if a ball smacks into a GK midriff and he catches it with both arms that he can then release it and re-handle it if the ball would otherwise have gone into the goal...
If you can find that circular that would be grand!
Still, this blokes hands are on the ball for a fair while. Surely we can't think that if a ball smacks into a GK midriff and he catches it with both arms that he can then release it and re-handle it if the ball would otherwise have gone into the goal...
All I can find is the law change in the big re-write which doesn't appear to have an explanation.
What we do have is the old language to compare:
"When a goalkeeper has gained possession of the ball with his hands, he cannot
be challenged by an opponent.
A goalkeeper is not permitted to touch the ball with his hand inside his own
penalty area in the following circumstances:
• if he handles the ball again after it has been released from his possession
and has not touched any other player:
– the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching
it with any part of his hands or arms except if the ball rebounds
accidentally from him, e.g. after he has made a save
– possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the
ball"
Note that rebound and save used to be the same with save being an example of rebound and that the new wording creates a separation of the 2 by the or.
He really doesn't handle it for that long. 2 seconds maximum. Bearing in mind this is a GK trying to prevent an error from causing an OG we should be able to afford him a moment's relief.