RefSix

Challenging a keeper in the air

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
At what point do we start giving 'fouls' for a foul on a keeper?

It is another issue we have at grassroots because TV refs blow up for some questionable fouls on keepers, which results in grassroot players thinking keepers are untouchable.

I had an incident where a striker jumped for the ball in a 'natural position' like anywhere else on the pitch. The keeper jumped and flapped at it. Luckily nothing came of it.

Afterwards the team went a bit looney because it was a foul and i need to protect keepers? Like what?

If I'm not giving it in the middle of the park, why would I give it just because the keeper is involved...?

Does anyone have any tips for future cases?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
It's not even about what football expects. But as spuddy says if the keeper is in control of the ball he cannot be challenged.
A keeper is in control of the ball when he has it between both hands, between 1 hand and a surface or if part of the hand is touching the ball unless from a save.
So it's not elite level referees perpetuating a myth it's them applying the laws correctly that fans and pundits alike just don't know. They see a soft foul against the keeper when in actual fact its an offence to challenge a keeper who is in control of the ball as per above
 

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
So both keeper and striker jump at the same time. Striker jumps for the ball, keeper flaps at it, thus not under control, its not a foul.

If keeper jumps, has it in 2 hands, fair enough.

What advice would you give to say to the captain who is now fuming coz they've watched too many pundits on tv?
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
So both keeper and striker jump at the same time. Striker jumps for the ball, keeper flaps at it, thus not under control, its not a foul.

If keeper jumps, has it in 2 hands, fair enough.

What advice would you give to say to the captain who is now fuming coz they've watched too many pundits on tv?
Depends. You're not saying whether he has committed an offence or not. No offence. No foul. You tell the captain there was no foul
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
I think you use a key word in the op.
Luckily

Had you been unlucky, the striker no doubt knocks the ball home and you have chaos

Extreme, but entirely plausible, you have defenders chasing you (if you are retreating from box), defenders surrounding you (if you stand your ground), a gk playing injured for maximum effect, a defender confronting the striker who *fouled* the gk, you have a squabble in the net trying to get the ball back, you then have a manager doing a war dance who you will now need to go over to warn, and possibly remove, and when all that is done, good luck with the next fk you award to the team who have just scored 'oh its ok for them to knock over our goalie but your giving a foul for THAT", and of course next corner to the team who lost the goal? They are going to go in rough on the gk, its going to be a clear foul, yet your now a cheating b cos you penalise them and not the other team.

Its very easy and sensible to justify, if needed, a foul on the gk
The other wau round, and you will be justifying it till the end of time, and no matter what you say, the defenders wont be having it
 

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
I think you use a key word in the op.
Luckily

Had you been unlucky, the striker no doubt knocks the ball home and you have chaos

Extreme, but entirely plausible, you have defenders chasing you (if you are retreating from box), defenders surrounding you (if you stand your ground), a gk playing injured for maximum effect, a defender confronting the striker who *fouled* the gk, you have a squabble in the net trying to get the ball back, you then have a manager doing a war dance who you will now need to go over to warn, and possibly remove, and when all that is done, good luck with the next fk you award to the team who have just scored 'oh its ok for them to knock over our goalie but your giving a foul for THAT", and of course next corner to the team who lost the goal? They are going to go in rough on the gk, its going to be a clear foul, yet your now a cheating b cos you penalise them and not the other team.

Its very easy and sensible to justify, if needed, a foul on the gk
The other wau round, and you will be justifying it till the end of time, and no matter what you say, the defenders wont be having it

Haha nicely put.... This is exactly why I said luckily.

Would you say that's why its easier to just give the 'foul' even though it really wasn't?

But then same applies if it was thr last minute winner and it clearly wasn't a Foul, it would be the same. Description as above, but from the striker's team.

I was once told be an assessor, its easier to give a 'dodgy FK' than a 'dodgy goal'
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
Haha nicely put.... This is exactly why I said luckily.

Would you say that's why its easier to just give the 'foul' even though it really wasn't?

But then same applies if it was thr last minute winner and it clearly wasn't a Foul, it would be the same. Description as above, but from the striker's team.

I was once told be an assessor, its easier to give a 'dodgy FK' than a 'dodgy goal'



Yes. The assessor is wise
A dodgy fk, upsets one or two folk for a few mins and we move on
A dodgy goal upsets continents until the end of time

Fine line between safe refereeing and inventing a foul here, if of course there is gen no foul, then dont give one, but referring to the tv example, yes, you do see a lot of softish fk given to the goalies and its exactly because giving the dodgy fk is sensible.

The top level refs are not there just because they are fit, good at spotting fouls and have perfect knowledge of the laws, they are elite because they have the skill of managing a game...
 
Last edited:

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
There is the case of when the keeper is in control of the ball with the hand and can never be challenged as discussed above. If the keeper is not in control of the ball with the hand, he still can not be challenge if the challenge is careless or above. So lets look at what careless is:

"Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution."

Goalkeepers are not a protected species however their role means they approach challenges differently. For example they are allowed to use there hands in their own PA unlike other players. Or they are expected to dive, be on the ground and have the head and torso at hip or knee height or below. Therefore the application of careless in certain circumstances would be different to other players. For instance if a keeper is jumping high in the air to catch the ball with his hands well above his head, he is exposing his rib area which is a vulnerable part of human anatomy. Then more care/attention/consideration/precaution is needed when challenging a keeper in that instance. Field players usually can and do use their arms and shoulders to protect themselves in aerial challenges.

But if a goalkeeper is challenging for the ball with his feet, there should be no difference.
 

spuddy1878

RefChat Addict
What advice would you give to say to the captain who is now fuming coz they've watched too many pundits on tv?[/QUOTE]


Playyyyyyy onnnnnnnnnnnn
 

OIREF!

RefChat Addict
One consideration ... if a 6ft + keeper is jumping with outstretched arms to catch the ball what are the chances that any challenging outfield player is getting anywhere near the ball?
 

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Level 7 Referee
One consideration ... if a 6ft + keeper is jumping with outstretched arms to catch the ball what are the chances that any challenging outfield player is getting anywhere near the ball?

Good point. But this fella wasn't the tallest and I don't think he was their proper keeper. Looked like a last minute stand in :p
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
One consideration ... if a 6ft + keeper is jumping with outstretched arms to catch the ball what are the chances that any challenging outfield player is getting anywhere near the ball?
True but it doesn't mean they have to clear the way for him to do his thing. Every player inducing the keeper is entitled to the space they already occupy. The problem comes when they are both moving or jumping for the ball which again they are both entitled to. But as I said, because a goalkeeper can legally challenge in a way which puts him in a more vulnerable state, more care should be taken when challenging him (which is not the same as not challenging him).
 

Big Cat

RefChat Addict
Level 6 Referee
Just to extend upon the avenue @one was heading down;
I consider the keeper's arms in the same context as any player's legs. If a player challenges the GK (assuming GK not in control) and impedes the keeper's arms before contacting the ball, I'd consider it a foul. Also, when any player is jumping for a ball, any challenge against them is likely to cause pirouetting or injury when falling to the ground. So there's two things to consider when assessing challenges on the GK which might explain why they seem to get 'special protection'
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
On the flip side, be very aware of goalkeepers jumping/charging/coming to claim a ball, with their knees up/studs up/feet up, in a clearly dangerous manner but a manner which the goalkeepers union will proclaim as "protecting themselves"

this frequent and reckless act should, when spotted, be penalised with a pk, and a sanction.

The "get out" for it being, if indeed you judge the gk was fouled airbourne and his legs did indeed offer him some kind of protection should he fall...
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Level 6 Referee
On the flip side, be very aware of goalkeepers jumping/charging/coming to claim a ball, with their knees up/studs up/feet up, in a clearly dangerous manner but a manner which the goalkeepers union will proclaim as "protecting themselves"
Exactly right. Back when I was a GK my coach would always tell me to lead with my knee to 'protect myself' (nonsense)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top