The Ref Stop

Chelsea V United

I just found the new circular here
It says:
"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" (sic: there's a typo in there;))

This refers to attempts to catch/save the ball and rebounds. This is not what happened with this Courtois case. It wasn't a failed attempt to catch the ball, a failed attempt to hold the ball, or a rebound.

Anyway, still waiting on a reply from HQ.
 
The Ref Stop
Santa, here are a couple of similar scenario that according to the strict wording of the law should be an offence but no one would ever penalise them due to "intent of the law" interpretation.

- A shot comes in, keeper dives, it rebounds off a defender, slows down and is rolling past the keeper on the ground (away from goal). The keeper puts his hand on it to stop it rolling. Gets up and then picks it up.

- a ball is rolling away from the keeper (and away from goal). The keeper roles it back to himself using his hand, takes his hand off the ball for a second or two while the ball is rolling towards him. He then grabs the ball.

The keeper momentarily had control of the ball with a deliberate touch. Then he did not have control of it before touching it again. His first touch of the ball was 'deliberate' and a 'successful' attempt at what he was trying to do. The strict interpretation of the wording of the law would suggest this should be an offence. However no one with a decent understanding of football will consider this a 'release' of the ball hence no offence. Same should apply to Courtois case although its not as clear cut or trivial as of my examples.
 
Since we're on the subject of technical double touches, I'm surprised no one posted this beauty yet from Ireland this weekend.

Skip to about 1:30.

 
Last edited:
That is just poor refereeing. Componded due to lack of focus, no anticipation and letting too many things slide by. I bet he would love to have a second go at that one.
Just about everything that could go wrong went wrong. Where was the attempt to get closer or get a better angle once it was clear the keeper is going to be challenged? Where was the call for the foul on the keeper? Where was the signal for the direction of the free kick? Where was the signal for indirect free kick. Where was stopping the game to attend the injured keeper.
I'm afraid once you award the goal there, no matter what you do after that (even if you disallow the goal) the game is gone.
 
cwyeary said:
Since we're on the subject of technical double touches, I'm surprised no one posted this beauty yet from Ireland this weekend.

Skip to about 1:30.
Click to expand...
LOL
Yah I think a DFK/IDFK for the challenge on the GK might have been slightly more sensible there.
OMG
Balls of steel though. Respect.
 
one said:
Santa, here are a couple of similar scenario that according to the strict wording of the law should be an offence but no one would ever penalise them due to "intent of the law" interpretation.

- A shot comes in, keeper dives, it rebounds off a defender, slows down and is rolling past the keeper on the ground (away from goal). The keeper puts his hand on it to stop it rolling. Gets up and then picks it up.

- a ball is rolling away from the keeper (and away from goal). The keeper roles it back to himself using his hand, takes his hand off the ball for a second or two while the ball is rolling towards him. He then grabs the ball.

The keeper momentarily had control of the ball with a deliberate touch. Then he did not have control of it before touching it again. His first touch of the ball was 'deliberate' and a 'successful' attempt at what he was trying to do. The strict interpretation of the wording of the law would suggest this should be an offence. However no one with a decent understanding of football will consider this a 'release' of the ball hence no offence. Same should apply to Courtois case although its not as clear cut or trivial as of my examples.
Click to expand...
These are YHTBT.
If in the second you are talking about the more common (to me) case where the GK is sliding at the feet of an attacker, hands get contact with the ball, release and then hold it properly again... for me that is clearly not an offence and the circular update is directly about that.
The first case you have sounds like an offence. But without more video ;)
 
I think I only called this maybe once or twice back on the day, 99% of footballers didn’t know what a parry actually was and the same amount of GKs were oblivious to its issue and thought you were just wrong. Not sure if much has changed recently, maybe only wording but they have been to be in complete control of a situation to knock it down effectively in that it doesn’t lead to an unintended chance for a sniffer striker before he handles it up for the second time. Most of them are mad anyway!
 
santa sangria said:
These are YHTBT.
If in the second you are talking about the more common (to me) case where the GK is sliding at the feet of an attacker, hands get contact with the ball, release and then hold it properly again... for me that is clearly not an offence and the circular update is directly about that.
The first case you have sounds like an offence. But without more video ;)
Click to expand...
Why do you say its a YHTBT? In what case can either not be an offence? There is a clear gap between the two touches when the keeper is not in control of the ball.
 
one said:
Why do you say its a YHTBT? In what case can either not be an offence? There is a clear gap between the two touches when the keeper is not in control of the ball.
Click to expand...
e.g. as I said, if the GK is sliding to block the ball and the ball rebounds off the hands of the keeper, rolls away and then the GK picks it up... no offence...

Video is great for these ;)
 
santa sangria said:
e.g. as I said, if the GK is sliding to block the ball and the ball rebounds off the hands of the keeper, rolls away and then the GK picks it up... no offence...

Video is great for these ;)
Click to expand...
But that's a different scenario to my examples. Rebound is already taken care of by the wording of the law. My examples are deliberate touches (no rebound) and the keeper achieves exactly what they meant to. However their actions can not be classified as a 'releases' in the general meaning of the word because its all part of the overall movement to gain control of the ball.
 
Last edited:
one said:
But that's, a different scenario to my examples. Rebound is already taken care of by the wording of the law. My examples are deliberate touches (no rebound) and the keeper achieves exactly what they meant to. However their actions can not be classified as a 'releases' in the general meaning of the word because its all part of the overall movement to gain control of the ball.
Click to expand...
I think if you are saying that there is one overall movement to gain control of the ball then, although not explicitly covered by the laws, this sounds like no offence. If the first "attempt" to try to hold the ball fails I think that is a "rebound". That's my interpretation of the law here. And that is significantly different from Courtois, who controlled the ball successfully and deliberately once, and then a second time. Still, waiting, hoping to learn something new from upstairs;)
 
santa sangria said:
I think if you are saying that there is one overall movement to gain control of the ball then, although not explicitly covered by the laws, this sounds like no offence. If the first "attempt" to try to hold the ball fails I think that is a "rebound". That's my interpretation of the law here. And that is significantly different from Courtois, who controlled the ball successfully and deliberately once, and then a second time. Still, waiting, hoping to learn something new from upstairs;)
Click to expand...
Personally I think you are confusing "in" control with controlling the ball here.
If you look at the law before the big rewrite this would be an offence.
The rewrite was done, and interestingly, this law was changed without explanation but I think its quite clear, reading the whole law, not just 1 part, that, it was changed to allow the keeper to regain possession with the hands following a save or other types of touches.
Then there is the new change which nails it for me that the law is intended to allow this action. Removing the word accidental makes it clear to me that the keeper can make a deliberate touch. I cant
Think of a scenario where a rebound would be deliberate so I think its just poor word choice. Happy for ifab to prove me wrong here.

The only thing you can argue is that the law is not crystal clear on this exact scenario but there is certainly enough in the explanations of changes to justify it.
 
santa sangria said:
I think if you are saying that there is one overall movement to gain control of the ball then, although not explicitly covered by the laws, this sounds like no offence. If the first "attempt" to try to hold the ball fails I think that is a "rebound". That's my interpretation of the law here. And that is significantly different from Courtois, who controlled the ball successfully and deliberately once, and then a second time. Still, waiting, hoping to learn something new from upstairs;)
Click to expand...

Sorry Santa, you know I'd have your back and be in agreement almost always. On this one I'm with James!
 
@santa sangria I note in the other thread you've had an answer from ifab - can you share that? I know you've asked for clarification on the response but would be good to read what their initial response is, whether you still don't agree or not :)
 
JamesL said:
@santa sangria I note in the other thread you've had an answer from ifab - can you share that? I know you've asked for clarification on the response but would be good to read what their initial response is, whether you still don't agree or not :)
Click to expand...
James, everyone is entitled to their view, right or wrong, stop gauding him into buttering up your ego in him getting something official that deflates his opinion on this. If you think you are 100% correct then surely you can enquire yourself and have the pleasure of posting it! :)
 
Sheffields Finest said:
James, everyone is entitled to their view, right or wrong, stop gauding him into buttering up your ego in him getting something official that deflates his opinion on this. If you think you are 100% correct then surely you can enquire yourself and have the pleasure of posting it! :)
Click to expand...
Actually that's not what I am doing. This is a forum for learning and resource, so I think where there is a split of opinion/interpretation and to resolve said difference an official opinion has been requested then I think it's only right that is shared for the benefit of everyone who uses the forum. We, well most of us, are here to learn and share after all. There are several who have expressed the difference in opinion on is subject so it clears the matter up for everyone. No egos here. I am not sure what pleasure I might receive from posting an official answer, cant imagine it being that much of a thrilling activity

I would write to them myself but I dont really see the point when one of the community already has... could you imagine every time we all disagree on something over here we clog the inbox up with 10-20 of the same question all written to suit our own agenda... makes no sense. It was Santa that wanted to take it to ifab so I am merely interested in the response. Without it I am just going to carry on as I always have with my own interpretation.

I am actually more interested in what has been said about what football expects... that to me suggests my interpretation could be wrong in law but correct in application.

Also it seems a little unfair to hint at having a response in another thread if you arent then going to share that info but continue debating it with other users when officially you've been advised the opposite to your debate (potentially) Its now been brought up in 3 different topics, by the same person, so I think for the benefit of this thread and the others we lay it to rest...
 
What football expects surely is one persons personal view whereas a law enquiry should be plucked from the good book. We all Ref at different levels and standards of everything, footballers expect different surely too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top