A&H

Goal? No Goal?

boulderdomb

Active Member
Skip to 40 seconds.

It looks like the ball has been played out the keepers hands although attempt at the ball was made before keeper had it in his hands - would this still be considered in control? I honestly don't know with this one and I'm "on the fence" to an answer but you can't do that on a Saturday afternoon! I'd probably take the easy option here and go goal based on how quick it was, although what is the correct approach?

 
The Referee Store
In real time it looked like simultaneous contact, so good goal. So I think even if we disagree with the decision it's probably not a criticism of the referee.
We can now see that the keeper clearly got his hands on it first.

So there's a question on law interpretation this one raises.
How do you handle the cases where the keeper gets a hand on the ball a split second before the attacker touches it? Are we required to be clear that the keeper has taken possession? Because in those split second instances it's hard to tell if the keeper is fumbling the ball or if he's safe.
Or does that not matter - given the text of the law, if we see the keeper's hand contact clearly first (even a split second), then unless we're certain the ball has left the hands we have to consider it to be in possession?

In all honesty, I used to apply an interpretation that kind of allowed these challenges a split second after - eg they both commit at the same time, you can see the keeper gets a touch but not sure if he's really taken possession (I'm talking from a more layperson definition). This actually didn't cause too many problems either, but these days I think that's been the wrong approach.
 
See why it was allowed to stand but the video clearly shows the keeper had the ball played from his hands.
 
Thanks everyone, I could see that the keeper 'controlled' the ball with both his hands also literally milliseconds before the head of the attacker who made move for the ball whilst it was airborne connected. Real time = goal for me here although I was curious for the correct procedure.
 
Goal for me and also, knowing that league as well as I know my own duvet, the lack of protests tell a story for me also. I would expect that goal to be givrn here, but, also not given at the higher levels...
 
Or does that not matter - given the text of the law, if we see the keeper's hand contact clearly first (even a split second), then unless we're certain the ball has left the hands we have to consider it to be in possession?
As things stand now, I think this is the correct interpretation. I also agree that in the past, this certainly wasn't the case - or at least it wasn't the commonly used interpretation and I also can remember times in years gone by, when I allowed goals which, if I were to look at them again now, I would probably disallow.
 
Thanks everyone, I could see that the keeper 'controlled' the ball with both his hands also literally milliseconds before the head of the attacker who made move for the ball whilst it was airborne connected. Real time = goal for me here although I was curious for the correct procedure.
If you reduce speed to 0.25 you can see than the attacker's head didn't actually make contact with the ball. His back connected to the keeper's right arm disconnecting it from the ball which meant the keepers left hand pushed the ball upwards and towards goal. The contact with keeper's arm makes this a DFK restart.

This for me is no different to a attacker kicking the ball moments after the keeper put his hand on a ball which is on the ground. This disallowed goal is a good example (vid should start play on incident but its at 38.22 just in case):

1521368372708.png

Keeper has minimal conact with the ball but the law says she has control.

Both incidents are very hard to pick real time. For me, as a referee, if you have doubt, don't allow a goal (with the exception of goals from offside which the benefit of doubt goes to attackers).
 
That's a tough one to spot. The hand went up so it may have looked like the keeper lifted her hand. I loved how the referee communicated her decision there!!
I disagree with your benefit of the doubt though. BOTD always goes in favour of play continuing.
for offside, BOTD isn't in favour of the attack - it's in favour of play continuing. Not sure if the ball went out? It didn't. Not sure if there was a foul? there wasn't. No difference here. I'd want to be certain there's been a foul to disallow a goal.
 
The trajectory of the ball after should make it obvious the 'keeper had possession. Most 'keepers would use there knee to discourage a challenge from the attacker, or failing that chuck themselves down to buy a free kick.
When players are honest let's not just always go with the easy option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Back
Top