Challenging a keeper in the air

[socal lurker]

I think one of the key factors is whether the attacker has any chance at the ball. A legal charge requires being in playing distance--a ball too high to head is not in playing distance for the attacker, but is for the GK. If the ball is at a heading height, I'll give the attacker more latitude as to contact, as we have two players with legitimate plays on the ball. But if the attacker does not have a legitimate play on the ball, I'm going to be very quick to see anything more than marginal contact as a foul.

 

[Peter Grove]

But if the attacker does not have a legitimate play on the ball, I'm going to be very quick to see anything more than marginal contact as a foul.

This - you have to watch out for the forward who jumps into the keeper and makes bodily contact simply to prevent the keeper being able to get his hands on the ball, while not actually even trying to play the ball. It's similar to the scenario where two outfield players go up for a header - one is trying to head the ball, whereas the other only has eyes for the opponent and jumps into them in just to put them off, showing a distinct lack of attention or consideration.

 

[CapeTownRef]

For me, goalkeepers are overprotected in general.

If a GK jumps from a standing position and the attacker jumps from a standing position and there is contact between the two, its play on as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK moves from his initial position and jumps , and the attacker jumps from a standing position, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its a penalty as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK moves from his initial position and jumps , and the attacker also moves from his initial position and jumps,, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its play on as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK jumps from a standing position, and the attacker moves and jumps, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its a foul against the attacker as far as I'm concerned.

 

[one]

For me, goalkeepers are overprotected in general.

If a GK jumps from a standing position and the attacker jumps from a standing position and there is contact between the two, its play on as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK moves from his initial position and jumps , and the attacker jumps from a standing position, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its a penalty as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK moves from his initial position and jumps , and the attacker also moves from his initial position and jumps,, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its play on as far as I'm concerned.

If a GK jumps from a standing position, and the attacker moves and jumps, and there is sufficient contact between the two, its a foul against the attacker as far as I'm concerned.

I think you have oversimplified this a bit. For example if both players (one is a keeper or not) are jumping into the position, one player is clearly challenging for the ball and the other is clearly has no eye for the ball but intent is to knock/nudge the other off the ball I would lean towards the foul for the one who is going for the ball. The amount of contact and where the contact is made are factors too. Those and other thing are what helps determine "lack of attention or consideration".

 

[CapeTownRef]

I either player shows intent, in the referees opinion, to obstruct the opponent rather than make a fair attempt to play the ball, then whether it is a GK or outfield player, the foul is given against them. GKs in the main believe that any form of contact, specifically when trying to catch or punch the ball away is a foul against them. It is most certainly not.

 

[Pembroke]

I think one of the key factors is whether the attacker has any chance at the ball. A legal charge requires being in playing distance--a ball too high to head is not in playing distance for the attacker, but is for the GK. If the ball is at a heading height, I'll give the attacker more latitude as to contact, as we have two players with legitimate plays on the ball. But if the attacker does not have a legitimate play on the ball, I'm going to be very quick to see anything more than marginal contact as a foul

Sometime after your post but topical - https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/leeds-burnley.16062/#post-185098

 

[RustyRef]

Refer to forum rule 11, as reproduced below. If it is topical and you want to discuss it please create a new thread rather than resurrecting one that is more 18 months old.

11. "Thread from the Dead"
Replying to a long-dead thread is not useful or helpful. Such threads will be locked and Warning Points may be incurred. If you wish to ask for help with something, please start a new thread rather than bumping an old one with your question. As a rule, please check the last post date before you post. If it's more than a few months old, you probably shouldn't bump it.