A&H

AVL v LC goal disallowed

Tim - 2013

Tim - 2013

Active Member
Level 7 Referee
I believe the call is correct...no goal. The keeper Schmrlichel had control of the ball. Hand on top of the ball and the ground underneath. Right from the law.

The arguments about the exception means no control, IMO, is a poor interpretation of this play.

The exception is a ball rebounding from the keeper or keeper makes a save.

The TV hosts are pointing out the save.

The save did not establish control. It was the subsequent hand on top of the ball.

If a keeper can't gain control after a save is a horrible interpretation. A play on the ball to save without hand(s) on the ball and the other hand/surface is not control. But, after the save, the hand on top of ball, ground underneath, is.

The LOTG has no length of time for control.
 
The Referee Store
AB0F2D5D-A3C7-4D5B-9F5C-14F1C3CF9038.jpeg
I now know why there was a sudden influx of people reading the circled thread
 
Called it straight away. Don't agree that he had full control of the ball at all but irrelevant really. Ball was clearly between his hand and the ground when it was kicked.
 
Big Cat said:
I thought the puppet ref executed the remote ref's instruction with aplomb... as usual
Click to expand...
I really don't think the snide comment on this play is appropriate at all. This was a bang-bang play that is tough to see live. On my first view, I wasn't sure if the GK had pinned the ball before it was pinned--that can be tough to be sure of on a live play like this, and it's not like a youth game where we are likely to err on the side of protecting the keeper. But from one of the angles on replay it is really clear that he pinned it first. For me (who hates VAR) this is an example of VAR being effective in making what is a clear call but that can be hard to be certain of in real time.
 
The worst thing about this decision is that it really brings out the lack of understanding from pundits and commentators which makes our jobs so much harder
 
QuaverRef said:
The worst thing about this decision is that it really brings out the lack of understanding from pundits and commentators which makes our jobs so much harder
Click to expand...

In fairness to Sky they read out the actual law text at half time and backed the referee's decision, even if grudgingly.
 
QuaverRef said:
The worst thing about this decision is that it really brings out the lack of understanding from pundits and commentators which makes our jobs so much harder
Click to expand...
It brings out stupid wording of the law. It's in the GK's control if it's between finger and ground - except after a rebound or save. So if it's a rebound the ball's not in the GK's possession, is it? And if it's a save, does that mean an opponent can kick the ball while the GK is holding it?
 
The "except" part seems completely unnecessary in the law. If the ball rebounds from the keeper then they are clearly not in control as described previously.
 
cwyeary said:
The "except" part seems completely unnecessary in the law. If the ball rebounds from the keeper then they are clearly not in control as described previously.
Click to expand...
I think you guys are missing the point here. The Law quite clearly states that the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball if they hold it in both hands, or hold it between one hand and ground, or even MERELY TOUCH the ball with a hand or arm while it is in the air ("or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"). Which is why we penalise any strong contact on a keeper who is in the process of touching a cross. Now if we make it that just touching a ball gives control (and the Law is clear), then a keeper who palms away a cross would technically have had control and then released the ball back into play (and therefore be under "backpass" constraints). And therefore the Law says that a save or rebound is not considered control and would not make it illegal for the keeper to touch it again.
 
Dan56 said:
I think you guys are missing the point here. The Law quite clearly states that the goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball if they hold it in both hands, or hold it between one hand and ground, or even MERELY TOUCH the ball with a hand or arm while it is in the air ("or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms"). Which is why we penalise any strong contact on a keeper who is in the process of touching a cross. Now if we make it that just touching a ball gives control (and the Law is clear), then a keeper who palms away a cross would technically have had control and then released the ball back into play (and therefore be under "backpass" constraints). And therefore the Law says that a save or rebound is not considered control and would not make it illegal for the keeper to touch it again.
Click to expand...
Then you put the bit about "except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save" next to the bit where it's relevant, viz.
touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player, except if the ball has rebounded from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

(It sounds like MotD asked the FA and PGMOL to explain it and they couldn't, so "we guys" may not be only ones missing the point of that qualifying clause.)
 
4EB1275A-1C50-474B-B675-7D5CB5011505.png
There are a lot of people on various websites quoting the law to prove this should have been a goal.

The law is sooo badly phrased!

It is quite justifiable to interpret the “exception” applies to the whole bullet, therefore the goal should have stood.

The law is sooo badly phrased, part 2!

If the GK has just made a save, how can the GK be in control of the ball? There is nothing that says “in two hands” or something else.


The media and fans are not to blame here. IFAB should fix this one urgently.
 
If I really want to, I can also interpret this so that the goal keeper can not be in control of the ball for the remainder of the game that way.

I agree that it is badly worded but would also say to interpret it in a way that the except applies to all of that point is a deliberate misinterpretation.

Let's say the keeper saves it, ball drops, the keeper then picks it up with both hands (between then hands) and walks with it for 5 seconds, Using the same logic, he still is not in control of it unless he puts it in an outstretched open hand or bounces it. And he can continue walking with it for the remainder of the game because 6 seconds doesn't starts until he is in control of it.
 
one said:
If I really want to, I can also interpret this so that the goal keeper can not be in control of the ball for the remainder of the game that way.

I agree that it is badly worded but would also say to interpret it in a way that the except applies to all of that point is a deliberate misinterpretation.

Let's say the keeper saves it, ball drops, the keeper then picks it up with both hands (between then hands) and walks with it for 5 seconds, Using the same logic, he still is not in control of it unless he puts it in an outstretched open hand or bounces it. And he can continue walking with it for the remainder of the game because 6 seconds doesn't starts until he is in control of it.
Click to expand...
Well, it's clearly not a deliberate misrepresentation. It's genuine bafflement.

And logic doesn't come into it - this is IFAB's wordsmiths we're talking about.

They should have a VAR - Verifying Awful Readings
 
This is not a save.

A save is an action by a player whicg stops the ball going into or close to the goal. This was not happening. This was simply an attempt to gain control of the ball, not a save.

The except when making a save clause is to allow a keeper, after having made a save, to take control of the ball as without it a save with the hand would mean taking control and immediately releasing it thus unable to use hands again until such a time it would be legal to do so again (e.g. Opponent plays the ball.)
 
I thought the save element was included to negate penalising the gk for regaining possession after he has released it.

EG - He can't put the ball down and then pick it up again, but he can (obviously) make a save and then pick it up.

THAT's what the second half of the wording is referring to.
 
That last bit doesn't make clear whether a "parry" when the GK could easily catch it counts as a rebound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top