A&H

Villa v Blades

The Referee Store
I wasn't so much interested in the second SU goal, it's more the vauguarity of the Law which has got my attention
 
socal lurker said:
Text below. Impossible to tell from the still picture if the GK had control at the moment the attacker made contact with the ball or if was loose. Likely was a foul.
Click to expand...
You have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.

Big Cat said:
I wasn't so much interested in the second SU goal, it's more the vauguarity of the Law which has got my attention
Click to expand...
Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.
 
one said:
You have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.


Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.
Click to expand...
It just doesn't make grammatical sense to state something specifically (ball between the hand and any surface) to then negate the statement with a much less specific instruction
The Law should read something along the lines of (edit truncated example), 'GK in control with hands on'.....for example, ball between the hand and any surface)
There a lots of examples of this pigeon English throughout the book. It's like IFAB want the LOTG to have 'secret meaning', revealed only to grand masters
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Big Cat said:
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) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
Typically ambiguous statement from the LOTG
The section in red is negated by the statement in green
Click to expand...
No, it's not - those are the different scenarios which constitute control. They are not mutually exclusive.
Big Cat said:
It just doesn't make grammatical sense to state something specifically (ball between the hand and any surface) to then negate the statement with a much less specific instruction
Click to expand...
It makes perfect grammatical sense and the latter less specific instruction does not negate the previous more specific one. Saying that the keeper has the ball under control by touching it with any part of the hands or arms does not make saying that having the ball between the hands or between the hand and any surface constitutes control, untrue. You can say that the second statement makes the first one redundant, since it encompasses it, but it does not make it untrue or invalid.
 
Last edited:
one said:
You have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.


Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.
Click to expand...

Crud. Must have mislabeled a book mark. I believe the only change was the subsequent deletion of the word “accidentally” to be clear that a parry is free game.

I agree with @Big Cat that this is among the poorly drafted parts of the Laws. It reads like a committee that couldn’t quite agree on language and said things that don’t quite flow together. I’m guessing the language about touching was really aimed at things like the ball resting on the hands (recall the ball headed out of the GK’s open hand that was permitted a few years ago), but that’s just a guess.

For the play at issue, I think it boils down to whether the forward touched the ball (1) before the GK touched the Ball, (2) while the GK’s hands were on the ball, or (3) after the ball bobbled off his fingers. The first and thirds would be legal, but the second a foul.
 
Peter Grove said:
No, it's not - those are the different scenarios which constitute control. They are not mutually exclusive.

It makes perfect grammatical sense and the latter less specific instruction does not negate the previous more specific one. Saying that the keeper has the ball under control by touching it with any part of the hands or arms does not make saying that having the ball between the hands or between the hand and any surface constitutes control, untrue. You can say that the second statement makes the first one redundant, since it encompasses it, but it does not make it untrue or invalid.
Click to expand...
Er... negate means nullify (wast of space), not invalid or untrue. I admire you as a historian, but as @socal lurker pointed out, the sentence is below par (for want of a better term). My first reaction when i read the book, is 'what the hell is this'? Fragmented and ambiguous, leaving us with a 'philosophy' and 'what the game expects' (as well as ignoring huge chunks of the bible, of which you are a disciple)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top