The Ref Stop

2018/2019 Laws of the game

1524372291894.png

Not sure how the law is any more clear now. Can a goal keeper who deliberately stops the ball from going for a corner with his hands (ball is slowly rolling and he could have easily picked it up) then pick it up after 10 seconds (and a couple of touches with his foot) because an opponent is nearing? What is the intention of the law in this situation?
 
The Ref Stop
one said:
Can a goal keeper who deliberately stops the ball from going for a corner with his hands (ball is slowly rolling and he could have easily picked it up) then pick it up after 10 seconds (and a couple of touches with his foot) because an opponent is nearing? What is the intention of the law in this situation?
Click to expand...

Yes?

What I inferred from the explanation is that the amendment is that deliberate, but unsuccessful attempts to stop the ball do not count as being in possession.

Having said that... I feel you are entirely correct that the wording is off, it gave me pause just thinking about this, and without the explanation notes I'd probably be a bit confused on that. (I actually deleted and reworded this so many times because I felt my explanation of the Law ended up being so absurd as to defeat the purpose of the law if that make sense?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
CapnBloodbeard said:
The VC is clear, the DFK is a bit more dubious.
Although the new laws it's easier to work it as a DFK anyway, so it's prob a fairly redundant change
Click to expand...
Thats my point. Its already covered. Any offence including contact is a dfk. Biting is obvious VC. Just made me chuckle.
 
one said:
Can a goal keeper who deliberately stops the ball from going for a corner with his hands (ball is slowly rolling and he could have easily picked it up) then pick it up after 10 seconds (and a couple of touches with his foot) because an opponent is nearing? What is the intention of the law in this situation?
Click to expand...

I think the intent is that this should not be allowed. The explanation for the change says it is designed for situations where the keeper has "unsuccessfully attempt[ed] to catch/hold/stop or 'parry' the ball." In the scenario you describe, the keeper has not unsuccessfully attempted to catch the ball at all, on the contrary they have deliberately attempted not to catch or hold the ball (and have succeeded in that attempt).
 
Peter Grove said:
I think the intent is that this should not be allowed. The explanation for the change says it is designed for situations where the keeper has "unsuccessfully attempt[ed] to catch/hold/stop or 'parry' the ball." In the scenario you describe, the keeper has not unsuccessfully attempted to catch the ball at all, on the contrary they have deliberately attempted not to catch or hold the ball (and have succeeded in that attempt).
Click to expand...
All that makes sense. However in a couple of years when the explanation is not in the book, most will interpret my example as a (deliberate) rebound and no free kick will be awarded. Hence my comment about t 'the law' not being any clearere. It's has cleared it for some senario as per it's explaination but muddied another.
 
Peter Grove said:
I think the intent is that this should not be allowed. The explanation for the change says it is designed for situations where the keeper has "unsuccessfully attempt[ed] to catch/hold/stop or 'parry' the ball." In the scenario you describe, the keeper has not unsuccessfully attempted to catch the ball at all, on the contrary they have deliberately attempted not to catch or hold the ball (and have succeeded in that attempt).
Click to expand...
Just seen this... I fully agree... what I don't get is why then the disagreement on the Courtois incident in the other thread?
 
The difference between my post #41 example and Courtois example is the time between the touches and 'release'. In my example we can easily say the keeper released the ball. In the Courtois case if it was a release or not is not very clear at all and debatable.

As mentioned in the other thread you can only be penalised for touching the ball again after releasing it. One can assumes if you no longer have control, then you must have released it. This assertion doesn't go well with the lotg definition of control. With the lotg definition if a goalkeeper deliberately and successfully rolls the ball toward himself with his hand to pick it up (example I used in the other thread), he has no control of the ball between the two touches and therefore he must have released it so its an offence. However this is clearly not the intent of the law and no one would even think that the keeper ever released the ball.

So the problem with the current law is its definition of control is ambiguous and there is no definition of release. So in the Courtois incident, it all comes down to the referee's interpretation of 'release' and a decision can be justified either way.

In my example post #41, if you consider the keeper kept control of the ball from the moment he touched it the first time (did not release it) until he picked it up, you then have to penalise him for the 6 second clause. That is why the time between the two touches is a factor too.
 
Last edited:
santa sangria said:
Just seen this... I fully agree... what I don't get is why then the disagreement on the Courtois incident in the other thread?
Click to expand...
In the lotg definition the keeper in the q in this thread would be considered to be in control of the ball. Ball is between the hand and surface.
 
one said:
The difference between my post #41 example and Courtois example is the time between the touches and 'release'. In my example we can easily say the keeper released the ball. In the Courtois case if it was a release or not is not very clear at all and debatable.

As mentioned in the other thread you can only be penalised for touching the ball again after releasing it. One can assumes if you no longer have control, then you must have released it. This assertion doesn't go well with the lotg definition of control. With the lotg definition if a goalkeeper deliberately and successfully rolls the ball toward himself with his hand to pick it up (example I used in the other thread), he has no control of the ball between the two touches and therefore he must have released it so its an offence. However this is clearly not the intent of the law and no one would even think that the keeper ever released the ball.

So the problem with the current law is its definition of control is ambiguous and there is no definition of release. So in the Courtois incident, it all comes down to the referee's interpretation of 'release' and a decision can be justified either way.

In my example post #41, if you consider the keeper kept control of the ball from the moment he touched it the first time (did not release it) until he picked it up, you then have to penalise him for the 6 second clause. That is why the time between the two touches is a factor too.
Click to expand...

You should watch the Courtois thing again. By your terms, he clearly controls/releases the ball. It's not debatable at all. He stops the ball going for a corner by controlling the ball with his hands, waits a few seconds and then picks it up. It is the "same" scenario you describe in #41.

(The definition of control is not ambiguous IMHO but there is a problem with the line about "any part of the hands or arm".)

There's no definition of release because release is only mentioned in the laws in the part about AR responsibilities during goal kicks IIRC.

Sorry that this straddling two threads. And I know no one wants to penalise this. I don't. But it looks/smells/reads like an offence still! You're just not selling it to me ;)
 
JamesL said:
In the lotg definition the keeper in the q in this thread would be considered to be in control of the ball. Ball is between the hand and surface.
Click to expand...
"or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except..."

The ball doesn't have to be touching a surface for the GK to be in control of it with one hand. How is it that Courtois is not in control of the ball when he controls it with his palm to stop it from going out play - by the LotG definition and general definition...?
 
santa sangria said:
"or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except..."

The ball doesn't have to be touching a surface for the GK to be in control of it with one hand. How is it that Courtois is not in control of the ball when he controls it with his palm to stop it from going out play - by the LotG definition and general definition...?
Click to expand...
Because hands or arms are plural. Hence both need to be used for them to be in control

• 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
 
Last edited:
santa sangria said:
There's no definition of release because release is only mentioned in the laws in the part about AR responsibilities during goal kicks IIRC.
Click to expand...
Actually, the very thing that you DON'T :) want Courtois penalised for uses the word 'release'. No 'release' no offence.
1527231502480.png

Its also used for players preventing keepers from 'releasing' the ball. But that's not up for debate here.
 
Last edited:
one said:
Actually, the very thing that you DON'T :) want Courtois penalised for uses the word 'release'. No 'release' no offence.
View attachment 1981

Its also used for players preventing keepers from 'releasing' the ball. But that's not up for debate here.
Click to expand...
Ha! I checked by searching the pdf - of course I searched "release" not "releasi..." But that's no excuse when that extract has already been mentioned. Sorry!

So, yes, release needs a definition. And a definition in the context of control. Does Courtois "release" the ball when he palms it away?

Can "control" just be a touch?

Is the new wording missing something about holding/catching the ball that is a type of control different to touching the ball?

(I still think it's an offence-ha!)
 
JamesL said:
Because hands or arms are plural. Hence both need to be used for them to be in control
Click to expand...

Well, that is one way to look at it but the phrasing doesn't specify it has to both. If that's what the law means it should say so. Then certainly no Courtois offence. But I don't think the law does mean that (and I have not read that interpretation before when e.g. Talking about challenges on GKs).

Surely a GK can catch one handed and be in control. When a GK holds the ball with one hand she is in control. So... Er... Good one... But I don't buy it without a circular!
 
It does though quite clearly say between the hands, between the hands and a surface.
It does say holding it in an outstretched single hand but courtois doesnt do that he never holds the ball. He pats it down into his path so for me still hasnt met the criteria lf being in control.
There has been a circular for the lotg changes and I think that justifies a no offence in these scenarios.
Hopefully ifab will write back to you soon to put this 1 to bed lol. They are normally good at responding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top