The Ref Stop

Chelsea V United

That's going to depend on whether it was a rebound, or whether the keeper did retain possession and simply dropped it imo.
 
The Ref Stop
JamesL said:
"Even if the first attempt to catch / hold the ball was deliberate."
No offence. Keep playing.
Click to expand...
I can't find the passage you quoted:
"If the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper this does not prevent the goalkeeper handling
the ball a second time even if the first attempt to catch/holds the ball was deliberate"
...anywhere online. Where is it from?

But also, I don't think it matters to the point here;) Doesn't this specifically refer to what happens when there is a rebound from a save? What Courtois did was not save/rebound/deflection. He played the ball twice with his hands.
 
santa sangria said:
I can't find the passage you quoted:
"If the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper this does not prevent the goalkeeper handling
the ball a second time even if the first attempt to catch/holds the ball was deliberate"
...anywhere online. Where is it from?

But also, I don't think it matters to the point here;) Doesn't this specifically refer to what happens when there is a rebound from a save? What Courtois did was not save/rebound/deflection. He played the ball twice with his hands.
Click to expand...
This is from the changes due this year, as I said. Read the explanation and you'll see why I think this is a simple, no offence, decision:

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
2. Indirect free kick
Amended text
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• the ball is between (…) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if it
rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the… (…)
Explanation
Goalkeepers often unsuccessfully attempt to catch/hold/stop or ‘parry’ the ball but as this is
a ‘deliberate’ touch with the hand(s) they have technically controlled the ball so cannot pick
it up. This is not the Law’s intention and is not enforced; removal of ‘accidentally’ clarifies
the Law.
 
Didn't watch it all as I was travelling part way through to a 50th birthday party but overall it was a final to forget from what I saw....Well done to Mr Oliver, it seems his poor performance at Bramall Lane earlier in the season was put behind him and he was on his A game for this one!!!
 
JamesL said:
This is from the changes due this year, as I said. Read the explanation and you'll see why I think this is a simple, no offence, decision:

LAW 12 – FOULS AND MISCONDUCT
2. Indirect free kick
Amended text
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• the ball is between (…) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if it
rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the… (…)
Explanation
Goalkeepers often unsuccessfully attempt to catch/hold/stop or ‘parry’ the ball but as this is
a ‘deliberate’ touch with the hand(s) they have technically controlled the ball so cannot pick
it up. This is not the Law’s intention and is not enforced; removal of ‘accidentally’ clarifies
the Law.
Click to expand...
That doesn't apply in this case. It wasn't an unsuccessful parry or similar. Courtois controlled the ball with his hand to stop the opposition getting a corner. His double touch is exactly what the law is meant to enforce IMHO.

I still don't see that "first attempt" part repeated. Have you got a link?
 
I
santa sangria said:
That doesn't apply in this case. It wasn't an unsuccessful parry or similar. Courtois controlled the ball with his hand to stop the opposition getting a corner. His double touch is exactly what the law is meant to enforce IMHO.

I still don't see that "first attempt" part repeated. Have you got a link?
Click to expand...
Ifab website.

I dont agree with your interpretation, I might be wrong but the way i view this law, specifically in this scenario, is that the keeper has saved his team conceding a corner. This for me is a save/attempted catch/parry. I dont think he has an opportunity to do anything other than use the hand to keep the ball in play.

A save is going into or near to the goal. Sadly there is no guidance on what constitutes near to the goal so we move to what football expects or spirit of the game. Not 1 single, player, official nor spectators in the stand appealed for anything, so I think its justifiable to just keep playing.

Imo the main intent of law is to stop keepers repeatedly picking up the e ball and putting it down again, which would be unsporting and detrimental to the game.
 
JamesL said:
I

Ifab website.

I dont agree with your interpretation, I might be wrong but the way i view this law, specifically in this scenario, is that the keeper has saved his team conceding a corner. This for me is a save/attempted catch/parry. I dont think he has an opportunity to do anything other than use the hand to keep the ball in play.

A save is going into or near to the goal. Sadly there is no guidance on what constitutes near to the goal so we move to what football expects or spirit of the game. Not 1 single, player, official nor spectators in the stand appealed for anything, so I think its justifiable to just keep playing.

Imo the main intent of law is to stop keepers repeatedly picking up the e ball and putting it down again, which would be unsporting and detrimental to the game.
Click to expand...
The law on what constitutes a save is a quite clear I think.
"A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal."
Courtois' action in this case was definitely not a save. The reason no one appealed was that it was not an obvious offence. It was an obscure technical handling offence.

You are being disingenuous with the sprit/football expects stuff here. The save guidance is clear. It was a classic double touch by the GK and should have been IDFK.

I am kinda waiting for someone to tell me I am actually wrong in law... ha!

It's obvious on replay:
https://ok.ru/video/731836516898?fromTime=2318 (about a minute after)
 
santa sangria said:
The law on what constitutes a save is a quite clear I think.
"A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal."
Courtois' action in this case was definitely not a save. The reason no one appealed was that it was not an obvious offence. It was an obscure technical handling offence.

You are being disingenuous with the sprit/football expects stuff here. The save guidance is clear. It was a classic double touch by the GK and should have been IDFK.

I am kinda waiting for someone to tell me I am actually wrong in law... ha!

It's obvious on replay:
https://ok.ru/video/731836516898?fromTime=2318 (about a minute after)
Click to expand...
Was probably stretching it with spirit of game but disingenuous I was not..

The explanation for law change is what drives my opinion. Its not applied and is not the intention of tje law to punish this offence. Depending on what definition of parry you look up, its an action that wards or blocks an attack. You can easily say that Courtois' action is a parry.

Furthermore I dont think you can say Courtois was in control of the ball...

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball 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 accidentally from the goalkeeper or the
goalkeeper has made a save
• holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
• bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
 
Sorry, it wasn't a parry (if you mean a rebound;) ? ). He was totally in control of the ball. Of course he was. A parry is not in the LotG by the way.

And you can exactly say - actually you could see - he controlled the ball. He jumped up and neatly palmed it down to the ground - he "touched it..." and it was not a rebound, or a save (or a parry if you like).

The law guideline is to make it clearer that you shouldn't punish the double touch when the keeper makes a save. Not this.
 
Well i wont be punishing this just like MO didnt. Rather than go round in circles we'll just agree to disagree.
Imo, courtois is never in control of the ball. The law is regards to keeper handling after release. And e change to wording specifically says the law is not applied and is not intended as worded.


I agree its poorly worded. Good luck penalising this in toir game at the weekend
 
Are we looking at the bigger picture here. Its the FA Cup final, in the name of game management you are not giving that, you will be talked about until the end of time if if leads to the winner/a goal, decisions likd that need to be clear as day. As in, every single person knows there has been an affront to the LOTG

As above says, if penalising that is your concern at your next game, you crack on
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Are we looking at the bigger picture here. Its the FA Cup final, in the name of game management you are not giving that, you will be talked about until the end of time if if leads to the winner/a goal, decisions likd that need to be clear as day. As in, every single person knows there has been an affront to the LOTG

As above says, if penalising that is your concern at your next game, you crack on
Click to expand...

Correct, penalising that would confuse everyone and make the referee the centre of attention.
 
santa sangria said:
Sorry, it wasn't a parry (if you mean a rebound;) ? ). He was totally in control of the ball. Of course he was. A parry is not in the LotG by the way.

And you can exactly say - actually you could see - he controlled the ball. He jumped up and neatly palmed it down to the ground - he "touched it..." and it was not a rebound, or a save (or a parry if you like).

The law guideline is to make it clearer that you shouldn't punish the double touch when the keeper makes a save. Not this.
Click to expand...
Not sure i understand the issue here. Forget the terrible wording of the book. What Courtois did, is allowed and has always been allowed as long as i've been breathing
 
RustyRef said:
Correct, penalising that would confuse everyone and make the referee the centre of attention.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with you here (not for this specific incident but in general). There are quite a few small bits of law that many don't know about but we do. This basically says ignore them. Often a free kick by a defender in his own PA is passed to another defender in the PA and no one knows why you ask for a retake, "but that's for a goal kick ref". Circumventing the laws of the game is another one.
 
one said:
Not sure I agree with you here (not for this specific incident but in general). There are quite a few small bits of law that many don't know about but we do. This basically says ignore them. Often a free kick by a defender in his own PA is passed to another defender in the PA and no one knows why you ask for a retake, "but that's for a goal kick ref". Circumventing the laws of the game is another one.
Click to expand...

Somehow I agree with both of you... It's not what the game needed, but at the same time, we can't pick and choose what we punish. In the end, was it a big mistake - no. Are we the only ones talking about it - probably.
 
santa sangria said:
I am kinda waiting for someone to tell me I am actually wrong in law... ha!
Click to expand...
You may not be wrong but neither is @JamesL. Once again the wording of a law has left more to be desired. I think the wrong part of law is being debated to justify the argument here. The law that can make this an offence is

"touches the ball with the hands after: • releasing it and before it has touched another player"

While the law has made the definition of save and control clear, the definition of release is not very clear. In fact there is no definition of it at all. While debating the definition of control for this incident may be relevant (they are used together in the same sentence), it is not exact. You may consider tapping the ball down to yourself as a 'release', other referees may not.
 
Last edited:
santa sangria said:
But it wasn't a "save". The ball wasn't going in or close to the goal. And it didn't rebound. He jumped up to stop the ball going for a corner by playing the ball with his hand. Then he picked it up from the floor. IDFK, surely?
Click to expand...
Not for me - not if applying the "spirit of the game". The full explanation accompanying this change says that it is "not the Law's intention" to penalise keepers when the ball rebounds from them, even if the first touch was deliberate. The Laws also say that:

The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone wants or expects that a keeper will be penalised for trying to prevent the ball going out for a corner. For me, it's distinct from a keeper who has a ball coming slowly towards them and pats it away with the hands as part of a ploy to get around the restrictions on goalkeeper control of the ball. That is what the law is intended to prevent, not what Courtois did.
santa sangria said:
You sure about that chief?
Click to expand...

I agree with @Big Cat; it's a practice that has been around for as long as I can recall and I have yet to see a keeper penalised for it in any high level game - because as far as I can tell it's something that has always been accepted as being done within the spirit of the game. I played in goal (on and off) for over 40 years and must have done this over a hundred times. I was never penalised for it and would have been astounded if I was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top