A&H

Goal keeper control of the ball

bloovee said:
At least they've got rid of the apparent use of "control" and "possession" to mean (presumably) the same thing. But by removing the reference to a parry (possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball) does that imply that parrying is still "control" or is a parry now deemed to be a "save"?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure it implies that parrying is no longer a thing, as far as the Laws are concerned. It is not mentioned in the Laws so in one sense, it need no longer enter into a referee's thinking. The only judgements that a referee now has to make are firstly, did the keeper touch the ball with his hands or arms and secondly, was it an accidental rebound or did the keeper make a save. The mere thought of parrying need not even begin to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing a referee's mind (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

However I suspect that the practice previously referred to as parrying will probably continue to be treated in the same way as before, meaning that it will be seen by many as a kind of save and will continue to be tolerated by most referees, unless the ball is travelling extremely slowly and the keeper is seen as pushing or directing the ball away rather than just letting it bounce off his hands.
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
Saw one of these one the weekend. Ref didn't give it and no players asked for it. Usually the case in those - which is probably why referees then are reluctant to penalise it.
 
Had a similar situation last week in a friendly game between two teams that I know very well. Played for one of them a few seasons back, may be playing for the other this season. Although I was rushed off in an ambulance yesterday after playing in a game, so doubt il be playing anytime soon....

But anyway, goalkeeper makes a save, parries the ball slightly then grabs it in one hand. Ball is now located stationary between ground and hand. He rolls it out a little bit, attacker closes him down and he picks it up again.

No appeal from any of the opposition, but I blow and award an idfk. Players all stand around, not knowing what was going on. Keeper hasn't got a clue. I explain the law and the concept of being in positive control... They accept it and carry on, as I knew they would (both teams are a very good set of lads). Idfk is taken and a corner follows.

Anyway, after the game, both keepers approach me as ask me about the laws. I ask them both to have a chat with me once we are all showered and changed... I'm then sat in the clubhouse with a group of players at a table, lawbook in hand explaining certain scenarios.

I much prefer it when a team accept the decisions, even when they have no idea what they are for. I was a bit surprised that I ended up giving a little lesson on the laws, most lads couldn't care less about education in the game.

A fellow colleague was watching the game... "Brave call that, no one knew. Why didn't you just play on?"... Would you guys have called it? Or would you adopt the "They don't know any different, don't surprise them" stance?
 
Last edited:
I have just played on in the past, the whole 'don't want to upset players over something nobody is calling for thing'. It's weak refereeing but a philosophy I know several on here subscribe to (although some of the strongest advocates appear to have abandoned the forum).

Good on you for having the courage to make the correct, but risky and unasked-for decision.

Anyway, ambulance? what happened???
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I have just played on in the past, the whole 'don't want to upset players over something nobody is calling for thing'. It's weak refereeing but a philosophy I know several on here subscribe to (although some of the strongest advocates appear to have abandoned the forum).

Good on you for having the courage to make the correct, but risky and unasked-for decision.

Anyway, ambulance? what happened???
Click to expand...

The only other situation I've been in with a goalkeeper for handling twice was in a game I was being assessed in.. He picked it up after saving it (and holding it for a while)... Again, no one shouted or appealed but I had to blow up otherwise I'd have the assessor making x's on his paper! That one was a bit harder to explain!

Jumped for a ball on Saturday, flicked it with the heel of my right foot, landed on my left foot but instead of bending my knee, it stayed straight so had no way of absorbing the energy from my jump... It dispersed across the bottom of my back and left me unable to move. Couldn't move my legs or anything, pretty scary.

After about 6 hours in hospital, I was soon able to walk again. I had an X-ray that came back clear. As soon as they filled me up with painkillers and I was able to walk, I was out the door!

The doctors didn't do anything for me. I was in agony. Worst thing was, they didn't even look or feel at my back to see if there was any bruising or indication of what could have been wrong. The hospital is the only one in Cornwall and was busy at the time, I was in a corridor for over an hour waiting for a cubicle. Not great.

Off to my base this morning as I'm hoping the doctors there can give me an explanation as to what's going on
 
I saw this last night. Rather than holding onto a slowly bouncing ball the keeper parries the ball to one side of the penalty area and waits until an offensive player approaches. The keeper's team was winning by 1 goal...it was an obvious time wasting tactic. I did not penalize or caution the keeper. Instead, I explained what I would do if he attempted the same tactic again. To make an uninteresting story even longer, the keeper asked me if I was going to make up any other rules throughout the match. I couldn't help but laugh a little bit. I told him to check out the IFAB's past rulings or to read the laws of the game. When I got home I realized that the word "parrying" no longer appears in the document, but the new wording means the same thing: the keeper has established "control" of the ball "...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." In my mind, a keeper's deliberate play with the hands to bypass the 6 second rule should be punished...especially after a warning. Thoughts?
 
Jrnatta said:
Rather than holding onto a slowly bouncing ball the keeper parries the ball to one side of the penalty area and waits until an offensive player approaches.
Click to expand...
You don't say so, but I assume the keeper then picked the ball up. If so, he has "touche[d] the ball with the hands after releasing it and before it has touched another player" in a situation where (as I read your description) the keeper's previous touch with the hands did not constitute either an accidental rebound or a save.

If so, please refer to the good Capn's post immediately prior to this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top