Aston Villa v Juventus
- Thread starter DJIC
- Start date
Can't watch that right now as I'm at work, but it's unclear from what I saw last night as to whether to on field decision was goal or foul.
If on field decision was foul, I can understand VAR not recommending a review, but in honesty I don't think it's a foul and if the on field decision was goal then VAR has had a shocker IMO.
If on field decision was foul, I can understand VAR not recommending a review, but in honesty I don't think it's a foul and if the on field decision was goal then VAR has had a shocker IMO.
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
I personally don’t think it’s a foul, but also isn’t one you’d want VAR getting involved in.
I’m guessing it was the left arm of the attacker which tipped them to thinking foul.
I’m guessing it was the left arm of the attacker which tipped them to thinking foul.
I think it would be a foul if the Goalkeeper's hands/arms were impeded because that's akin to tripping an outfield player
However, the GK clearly is not in control of the ball here and so he can be challenged. And that's all that happened. A challenge. Normal football contact for which the GK has no divine right to be immune from
However, if it was a super safe on-field decision, VAR has no place getting involved. Super safe refereeing always equates to poor refereeing however. Super safe refereeing is a bot of a scourge on the game
However, the GK clearly is not in control of the ball here and so he can be challenged. And that's all that happened. A challenge. Normal football contact for which the GK has no divine right to be immune from
However, if it was a super safe on-field decision, VAR has no place getting involved. Super safe refereeing always equates to poor refereeing however. Super safe refereeing is a bot of a scourge on the game
I don't quite agree on this. Both players are already in the air, the Villa player makes no additional movement one the GKs hand touches the ball and nothing the Villa player does actually impedes the GK for me. As above, I think it's 'safe refereeing' (which is a poor term in itself because when a goal is the end result there is no safe option) and I don't think VAR should get involved, but I still don't think it's a foul.
In law he is in control.
I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily but explicitly in law he is in control of the ball when he touching it. Explicitly in law he can't be challenged when in control. The player is competing/contesting for the ball so as soon as keeper touches it we have, metaphorically speaking, 2+2 = 4.
Yeah, appreciate what you're saying regarding law, but I don't personally think law intends that to be a foul (or if it does, general football expectation is that it isn't a foul IMO).
Again, I get why it was given also.
I don't really see a way out. If keeper doesn't touch the ball with his hand it's fine. If not then shows over.
Perhaps the law is too explicit here. You know my feelings on the law. We have this weird world where we have to make it up if the laws don't cover a scenario, and when they do, very clearly we then say, not sure that's the intent, and whilst I understand that, it is almost always easier to point to law than explain why you have done something contrary to law.
Is this safe? Yes. Is it supported by law? Yes.
It would have been interesting to see what VARs position on this would have been had the goal been allowed...
Perhaps the law is too explicit here. You know my feelings on the law. We have this weird world where we have to make it up if the laws don't cover a scenario, and when they do, very clearly we then say, not sure that's the intent, and whilst I understand that, it is almost always easier to point to law than explain why you have done something contrary to law.
Is this safe? Yes. Is it supported by law? Yes.
It would have been interesting to see what VARs position on this would have been had the goal been allowed...
Could potentially also be argued hes not in control by using the law as well.
Assuming we are looking at touching it with any part of the hands. Do we think the save definition is a get out?
Only a referee who knows the law exact would be deeming this “control”
Think it's really soft but it is the correct application of the law 
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper makes a save.
If the player doesn't challenge the keeper, he probably catches the ball. It is the contact that means he drops it.
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper makes a save.
If the player doesn't challenge the keeper, he probably catches the ball. It is the contact that means he drops it.
I think you'd be hard pressed the ball was going into or close to the goal so save is off the table for me.
Like IFAB ever meant 'touching the ball' to mean 'control' in this circumstance
But yes, I suppose we have to 'guess' that they did, so I make you right
I've ALWAYS said, the Glossary at the back of the book needs to be replaced with Definitions. The Definitions (such as 'save' or 'control') could then be comprehensively and clearly defined and referenced as would happen in any properly organized reference to Law (Law being a completely inappropriate and outdated word that should be replaced with 'Rules')
Last edited:
Not an 'elbow' as I originally thought, but the attacker has zero chance of playing the ball here - he's jumped too late (or is two feet too short, take your pick), and his arm hits the keeper in the chest mid-air right as the keeper is about to catch the ball.
View attachment Screen_Recording_20241128_164204_Facebook.mp4
Shouldn't every referee know the law exactly? Not sure I understand an argument that referees would only make a decision if they understand the specific law?
Its a foul for me, wouldn't have expected VAR to get involved, but if it was given on pitch I'm comfortable with that.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Agree. GK gets to the ball, the attacker doesn’t. I don’t see anything controversial here. GK’s are vulnerable when stretched out like that. So I also think this absolutely should be a foul—the attacker has no chance at that ball and is plowing the GK in a vulnerable position. (Confession: I was a GK….)