The Ref Stop

does the GK have special protection from other players

pankaye

pankaye

Well-Known Member
Level 5 Referee
I saw this on a Facebook group. may I have the thoughts of you fine ladies and gents


I've had numerous conversations with dads of goalkeepers and nearly all come away with the same responses, "The Keeper has a right to protect him/herself" or "as the referee, you have to defer to protecting the keeper." These are upper level youth . matches U16-18. Here's two situations and please give your thoughts: SITUATION A: Attacker enters the penalty area in a one-on-one attack against the keeper. Attacker has possession of the ball. Keeper has the option of challenging the attacker from standing position, just as any other field player. Keeper chooses to dive head first at the ball and the feet of the attacker as the attacker is taking a shot. Keeper is injured from being kicked from the attacker's shot. The kick happens on the follow through of the shot by the attacker. Ball is deflected and crosses the goal line and not in the goal. YOUR CALL/NO CALL AND WHY. SITUATION B: Ball is served by attacking team to a player not in an offside position. Ball is in the air and coming down inside the penalty area. Attacker jumps to attempt to head the ball. Keeper jumps to try to catch the ball with hands. When keeper jumps, he leads with his right knee extended which strikes the attacker in the chest as the keeper takes possession of the ball. Attacker falls to ground and is injured from knee striking his chest. YOUR CALL/NO CALL AND WHY.
 
The Ref Stop
A) Sounds fine to me.

B) is a bit different, and i would be considering a penalty, if the keeper jumping with a knee leading causes the attacker to pull out then i would be considering an IDFK for PIADM. We wouldnt allow an outfield player to jump with a knee (or more likely an elbow) leading for "protection", so why should a keeper get away with it?
 
If GK dives head first and is hit by a leg with natural movement which isn't careless, reckless etc no foul. I think at the moment a lot of players at youth shout for a foul if there is contact. Second YHTBT moment, I think the angle of where you are the angles of the two players are coming from the flight of the ball, where is the keeper looking etc. Gks get more protection from refs than any other players as they are the ones who are diving at peoples feet, trying to smother balls with boots flying, but we have to be sensible and if the GK fouls then a PK should be given.
 
a) Sounds fine. Attacker is allowed to take a shot - dive at somebody's feet and this is an inherent risk. Fouls must be CARELESS at minimum. Was the attacker acting carelessly?

b)This is a foul and a very, very distinct possibility of a red card. Keepers were taught to do this to protect themselves. Protect yourself? You don't get to protect yourself by putting a knee in somebody's face. By that logic, a player leading with an elbow into a header is just protecting himself. What's the difference?

This is a penalty. No ifs or buts. The only question is the card - and we're looking at things like the force involved (speed of players), as well as previous conduct from the keeper.

This is the sort of situation that tends to arise if you've let attackers unfairly challenge the keeper before without dealing with it.
 
The GK has extra protection because we let them wear long pants, not as many skinned knees. lol

a) No foul, restart CK. Did the goal keeper endanger himself or opponent? It does not sound like it from your description, but there is also the possibility that the goal keeper fouled the attacker.

b) Foul, dangerous play minimum. Restart IDK at the point of infraction or at the edge of the Goal Area if the foul occurred inside. Could consider caution for the goal keeper if considered reckless, but at that point your are looking for the penalty spot. How high on the chest? how forceful is the challenge? Was the contact incidental in collecting the ball or was it deliberate and a tactic. There are options for serious foul play and excessive force all depending on what you see.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Can't be dangerous play as there was contact - must be a DFK.
Click to expand...
Yup, letter of the law your right, but I did ask if the contact was incidental, pretty much the only way you get an IDK.
Did the keeper jump with knee out and the attacker ran or jumped into him? If the keeper is trying to catch the ball with his hands, arms raised above the head and his knee is chest height; the attacker is trying to head the ball? does he even know where the ball is?

Was the contact initiated my the person committing the foul or by the person being fouled, and does it matter?
Honest question, had similar issues with impeding since the contact clarification last year.
 
If the keeper jumped with the knee out then he has still carelessly kicked/struck the opponent in a manner that's careless at minimum. If, by playing in a dangerous manner, there's contact with the opponent then that means you've committed a careless DFK foul instead of a 'risky' IFK foul.

It would be like saying a high foot that kicks a player in the head is not a DFK if the opponent tried to head the ball and headbutted the player's studs ;-)

Impeding...well, technically it's the same answer but I have issues with that personally :P I think it's ridiculous that any contact while impeding the progress of an attacker makes it a DFK. Which is very different, for me, to PIADM that makes contact.
 
The goalkeeper has special protection from the other players, but only in the specific situations described in the Laws - i.e. when in control of the ball with the hands and when in the process of releasing it. At all other times (such as in the examples given, when challenging for the ball) there is nothing in the Laws that I can see, to suggest that the keeper should be treated any different to any other player.
 
We have been shown videos of fouls, in one of which FIFA are very clear, a goalkeeper jumping with knee up and contacting an opponent is not only a foul but should also be a caution.
 
Ya as others have said the first one is nothing - second for me is a clear Pen and as @CapnBloodbeard says it's probably Red in most cases. Think about this challenge in the outfield if two players are running into the the drop zone from a GK mid field and jumping up to challenge for a header and one of them goes in with the knee out you're definitely calling a foul and pretty sure he's having an early bath too - the judgement here is reckless or dangerous.

In my original course the head tutor showed us a clip of this where he sent a keeper off in the first few minutes of a cup final for a very similar situation.
 
does it make a difference in the second scenario ,in the way in which the keeper has jumped? by that i mean if he's jumping into the player with forward momentum, or, as keepers do, a standing jump straight up and down. If the latter(with knee up) then is he not just protecting his space, much like an outfield player jumps with arms extended to do the same thing... just that keepers are using their hands above their heads to catch the ball, and the knee becomes that natural barrier.
i think you can tell the intent at the time, you know instinctively if he's deliberately gone out to hurt the attacker
 
richard ramjane said:
does it make a difference in the second scenario ,in the way in which the keeper has jumped? by that i mean if he's jumping into the player with forward momentum, or, as keepers do, a standing jump straight up and down. If the latter(with knee up) then is he not just protecting his space, much like an outfield player jumps with arms extended to do the same thing... just that keepers are using their hands above their heads to catch the ball, and the knee becomes that natural barrier.
i think you can tell the intent at the time, you know instinctively if he's deliberately gone out to hurt the attacker
Click to expand...

Think that's a long way of saying Careless, Reckless, or Excessive. If he's careful he won't bash into the player with his knee and it won't be a pen. If he's careless it's pen and we go from there on cards.
 
WilliamD said:
Think that's a long way of saying Careless, Reckless, or Excessive. If he's careful he won't bash into the player with his knee and it won't be a pen. If he's careless it's pen and we go from there on cards.
Click to expand...
I disagree - it's the difference between the keeper using forward momentum to enter someone else's space in a dangerous manner and the keeper going vertically upwards and someone else running into a knee that is moving with little or no horizontal momentum.
 
GraemeS said:
I disagree - it's the difference between the keeper using forward momentum to enter someone else's space in a dangerous manner and the keeper going vertically upwards and someone else running into a knee that is moving with little or no horizontal momentum.
Click to expand...

Hmm ok. I'm not saying that a keeper jumping vertically with a knee up and having someone run into it is a foul. Think we might be agreeing vertical is no foul...jumping into a player with a knee is careless as a starting point.
 
GraemeS said:
I disagree - it's the difference between the keeper using forward momentum to enter someone else's space in a dangerous manner and the keeper going vertically upwards and someone else running into a knee that is moving with little or no horizontal momentum.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure you do disagree - I think you just said more or less the same thing as @WilliamD but in a different manner. :)
 
Hi
The game is littered with situations where the benefit has been given to goalkeepers, a cursory search of the web shows many. One that springs to mind immediately was Neuer on Higuain in the WC game Germany v Argentina. Ref gave the foul to the GK when in fact it was just plain reckless if not excessive force by Neuer.
GK are also coached in a way of protection plus they look for fouls on the slightest contact.
Now it us easy on paper to deal with such situations yet the reality in a game is much more difficult. GK tend to be somewhat foolhardy on challenges and put themselves in great danger. The difficulty for the referee is determine what is self inflicted and what is caused by the GK.
In the laws there is no special protection for the goalkeeper other than when he has possession of the ball.
 
another slant on the same question in the OP.

does the keeper not have more protection and he has more range of "natural movement" in carrying out his duties. for instance when going for a 50/50 cross into the box a keeper is a lot more vulnerable so I am more likely to interpret and attacker clattering into him and not getting the ball as reckless than say 2 outfield players going for it. and the excuse that it was a 50/50 ball won't wash when dealing with keeper/outfiled player clashany views on that guys or am I plain wrong?
 
pankaye said:
another slant on the same question in the OP.

does the keeper not have more protection and he has more range of "natural movement" in carrying out his duties. for instance when going for a 50/50 cross into the box a keeper is a lot more vulnerable so I am more likely to interpret and attacker clattering into him and not getting the ball as reckless than say 2 outfield players going for it. and the excuse that it was a 50/50 ball won't wash when dealing with keeper/outfiled player clashany views on that guys or am I plain wrong?
Click to expand...
The definitions of careless and reckless in the Laws both carry an element of consideration or regard by the player making the challenge for the consequences of that challenge on the opponent. So if you believe the goalkeeper, in a particular scenario, is more vulnerable, then I think you should factor that in when trying to decide if the challenge is careless or reckless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top