RefSix

Poor Wording

#21
Are you saying that a goalkeeper can cleanly kick the ball and then go and pick it up if the ball doesn’t go as far as intended to a teammate?

Surely, that’s not the intention of the law - or is it - genuinely confused?
It's a really interesting question. The cases shown in the explanatory videos are obvious, clear cut ones where the GK massively slices the ball in a manner very different to that intended (No offence when he then catches it). At the other extreme would be the GK simply tapping the ball and then picking it up (Still an offence). If he's tried to kick it to a teammate but underhit it and subsequently picked it up then, for me, it is a grey area ... though I'd be tempted to penalise if in any doubt.

I'm at an FA meeting next Saturday so will raise the question and seek clarity
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
#22
It's a really interesting question. The cases shown in the explanatory videos are obvious, clear cut ones where the GK massively slices the ball in a manner very different to that intended (No offence when he then catches it). At the other extreme would be the GK simply tapping the ball and then picking it up (Still an offence). If he's tried to kick it to a teammate but underhit it and subsequently picked it up then, for me, it is a grey area ... though I'd be tempted to penalise if in any doubt.

I'm at an FA meeting next Saturday so will raise the question and seek clarity
Whereas I'd be tempted to give the keeper the benefit of the doubt ;)
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
#23
One thing that strikes me is Shaka Hislop should be given a senior role in football. Intelligent, well spoken, understanding, he came across very well in that clip.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#24
One thing that strikes me is Shaka Hislop should be given a senior role in football. Intelligent, well spoken, understanding, he came across very well in that clip.
Surely you don't mean as a player. That doesn't fit the profile of any player I know :D
 
#26
Are you saying that a goalkeeper can cleanly kick the ball and then go and pick it up if the ball doesn’t go as far as intended to a teammate?

Surely, that’s not the intention of the law - or is it - genuinely confused?
The way I read it (and looking at the examples that have been given) my view is that it is indeed, not the intent of the law to allow a simply underhit pass to be handled by the keeper. Wording such as "clearly," "unsuccessful," "attempt," "release into play," "no intention to handle the ball" etc, in my opinion, tell us what is meant and when you look at the video examples that is reinforced, for me. It's designed to cover the obvious miskick where the ball does not go anywhere near where it was supposed to go. The typical example would be meant to allow for the wild slice that was supposed to go way upfield but instead, due to a complete miskick loops up into the air and spins or is blown back to the goalkeeper.

A ball that is properly kicked and directed as it was supposed to, but just lacks a little bit of power is not the scenario that this law change is intended to cover, based on everything I read and see.
 

RefJef

RefChat Addict
#27
One concern I do have is how “well known” it will be to players.

I suspect that, even right down in the very roots of grassroots football, where the miss kick and shank are not uncommon, many players will not encounter it often, so it may struggle to enter the “collective memory” of football, and thus create great confusion and debate when it does occur.

But it is what it is. I remember (as player & spectator, but not ref) when the back pass law was introduced I think this amendment is sensible.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#28
Once the keeper has shanked it, old law, new law, give IFK or not, it would cause confusion for players.

Players know 'back pass' is a free kick but once the keeper kicks it they would have no idea what should happen I the keeper catches it (old law or new).
 
Top