Keeper goes to ground, attacker trips over keeper

[CapnBloodbeard]

Here's one that's been bugging me for years....

Attacker is heading towards goal, 1-on-1 with keeper. Keeper comes out to just inside edge of PA, attacker heading straight for him. Not overly fast. Attacker is about to take a touch and is a few steps away. Keeper things the attacker is going to knock it past him to drops to the ground. Attacker chips the ball over the keeper, takes another step or two, then trips over the keeper who has dropped to the ground.

Decision?
If memory serves, the attacker's last touch came just after the keeper dropped. At worst, roughly simultaneous - though obviously the keeper wouldn't have dropped after it was chipped.

I allowed play to continue based on 2 reasons:

1) The keeper made his movement before the attacker made his. A little like when a defender stands in front of an attacker with the ball, defender stands still in front of the attacker, attacker knocks the ball past the defender then runs into the defender, this is not a foul by the defender (although too many referees mistakenly call it just because the players expect it).

2) When you have a player on the ground that can be a bit different due to the tripping hazard prevented - but the attacker made no effort to jump over the keeper. Now, this makes decisions grey at best...on one hand, the player shouldn't be on the ground. On the other, that doesn't entitle the attacker to run into him. I don't believe the attacker was looking for the contact here. but my reasoning was that dropping to ground had no impact - had the keeper remained on his feet, the attacker still would have run into him and it would not have been a foul by the keeper (if anything, foul by the attacker).

This happened in the last game I refereed a few years back and I don't know if I got it right or not (later I made a terrible decision allowing a goal when the keeper had clearly been fouled.....the team that was attacking here were the losers of that decision).

Given the scenario it would have been a red card for DOGSO had I given the foul but this did not factor into my decision. Outside of that the foul would not have been considered worse than careless if there was a foul.

 

[ref craig]

I would of blown up award an ifk and caution the attacker for simulation

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I would of blown up award an ifk and caution the attacker for simulation

So the attacker taking a step or two and not attempting to clear the keeper is enough to make that decision for you? just clarifying your opinion here.

 

[ref craig]

Keepers already missed player completely really and my opinion and reading threw it his tried to win a penalty by diving over the keeper

 

[Charlie Jones]

I would like to say same as @ref craig ... but depending on the speed it happens and angle you have could seriously sway me! ... anything from penalty to play on to simulation - quite tough!

 

[Matthew]

Sounds very much like a YHTBT situation.

As you've described it, I'd be edging towards play on, purely because it sounds like the attacker initiated the contact in this situation. Others may be able to justify a caution for simulation, but I'm not sure if I could be certain in this situation.

As @Charlie Jones says, this kind of incident goes across the whole spectrum (play on/penalty/simulation).

 

[GraemeS]

Sounds like a "play on" to me - just because there's contact, doesn't mean it has to be a foul.

 

[Russell Jones]

From your description, the only decision I could rule out would be the simulation caution & IDFK as you say ..

I don't believe the attacker was looking for the contact here.

Other than that, maybe consider it as you would a ball to hand handball situation .. did the player have a clear opportunity to move his hand away before the contact? But in this case, did he have a clear opportunity to change his run to avoid the contact? If he didn't have that opportunity, then for me it's a careless foul by the keeper and a PK / DOGSO as you describe it. If he did have that opportunity but chose not to take it then play on for me (or depending on the severity of the contact, maybe even a foul against the attacker!)

Overall though, given the lack of clarity in your mind, simply playing on and blaming neither player for the 'coming together' probably makes the most sense

 

[Tealeaf]

Play on. If the attacker complains "I've played you advantage fella. If that ball goes in but I've blown the whistle you're going to be on my back all day."

 

[Will Triffitt]

I'd do nothing. The GK has done his job in trying to get the ball and it sounds like there wasnt much that the attacker could have done in that space of time between kicking the ball and hiting the attacker. If anything it would be an IDFK to GKs team. If it was a penalty then the keeper would have had to be dismissed so with all that in mind and you (@CapnBloodbeard ) points then I would agree, right decision made there

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Why an IFK?

 

[SM]

Once you go off your feet as the keeper did by dropping down, you're 100% committed to your action. I'd be inclined to say it's a risky gamble of a challenge by the keeper and the attacker has done him with the chip.

So, penalty (if the contact is inside area of course) and dogso (if there are no other defenders in a position to challenge)

But I guess you would really have to see it to be sure. Probably see it more than once! And see it from multiple angles!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

SM - not disagreeing with you - but what about the fact that there would have been no difference by the keeper standing there? does the fact that the keeper made his action first change things, or not really when it's going to ground?
I suppose that's a bit like the defender who makes an 'early' slide tackle from too far away and the opponent has the chance to react and knock the ball away but still gets tripped

 

[SM]

Exactly.

The keeper standing there is different for me. As long as he makes no effort to play the ball or the man, I am happy.

By dropping down he has tried to play the ball (or the man).

It's all theoritical though and just playing devils advocate of possible outcomes. In the speed it took the actual event to happen any of the outcomes above sound like they could have been applied!

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

That's fair enough SM, appreciate the clarification. Of course it is YHTBT.
The fact that there are such varied responses here suggests it really is difficult to call......perhaps it's one of those 'gut' decisions....

 

[richard ramjane]

i used to play centre half with a fella who used to regularly 'tackle' in this fashion... he'd literally lay his 6'4" frame on the ground in front of the oncoming attacker and it would then be down to them to go round, over or through him. on the occasions that the attacker ended up on the floor, i honestly cant recall a free kick being given against him.