It would be a save right? Basically that 2018 change was to make it clear that any parry/deflection/rebound from the GK using their arms meant they didn't control the ball and were allowed to pick it up again.
AVL v LC goal disallowed
- Thread starter Tim - 2013
- Start date
It would be a save right? Basically that 2018 change was to make it clear that any parry/deflection/rebound from the GK using their arms meant they didn't control the ball and were allowed to pick it up again.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
You just need to tell MotD, the Ref Tops and 5 million keyboard warriors that!
one
RefChat Addict
This is why everyone is confused. So often the explanation for the law change is better worded than the law change. The except section doesn't belong here where control is defined. It belongs to a few dot points above it where second touch after release is defined as an offence.
Does it? It took out "accidental" - so if the GK, under no pressure, deliberately parries the ball (perhaps a gentle header back to him by a teammate), is that control?
My reading of it was to clarify the answer is no. Previously you could have read it as yes.
My announcers at half time and after the game kept saying it should be a goal.
Ridiculous.
Ridiculous.
steakbridie
New Member
If you look back at the 2015-16 LOTG - https://areferee.com/images/Fifalawsofthegame2016 page 124 - you can see the section with the exception is separate to the one above it which deals with the definition of being in control of the ball. Seems like it was merged in the big rewrite which has caused the confusion.
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
With all due respect, I didn't.
I knew it was a 'foul' and what the law meant without consulting laws of 5 years ago.
Any (qualified) ref knows when a GK can and cannot touch the ball again after a save or deliberate parry/touch - more importantly so do most GKs, which is why they are very rarely penalised for, using the vernacular, touching it twice.
Another straightforward decision pulled apart and magnified by the media and on line 'experts', most of whom don't have a clue.
I didn't mean you personally, but the laws are more than twice the length they used to be, and your position seems to reinforce the complaint that they are not exactly readily understood. If you have to do a course to understand the laws, there is something wrong. Post #19 - look at the explanation. It effectively says "the law doesn't mean what it says". What exactly is a "deliberate rebound" as distinct from a save (and a parry)?
ChasObserverRefDeveloper
Regular Contributor
The 2016 revision reduced the word count from 22,000 to 10,000.
It is not necessary to do a course to understand the laws. Learners on courses in England have read the laws already, and proved their understanding by getting 100% in sn online test.
Pinner Paul's last paragraph is spot on.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
This was a point that I was going to make - you beat me to it.
Although it's perhaps just a little bit more complicated, in that while the definition of what constitutes control is/was in there originally and primarily in relation to "double touch" offences, it is also used to establish when a goalkeeper cannot be challenged for the ball.
The point that some pundits seemed to miss (such as the ones on MotD) is that the exception to when the goalkeeper is in control of the ball that is provided by the bit about if, "the goalkeeper has made a save" applies only to double touch offences and not to when the goalkeeper can be challenged for the ball.