Ref4Me

Foul Recognition involving GK

ggroves.2

---
Level 7 Referee
So, I'm interested in clarifying foul recognition on the keeper, and how much protection they have.

-Situation A: Goalkeeper jumps into the air, punches a corner clear then his gloves connect with an attackers head, clearly by accident, after the attacker had challenged for the ball (Classic penalty shout erupts here)

- Situation B: Goalkeeper jumps to collect a cross, and attacker jumps to head it, and collides with the keeper by accident (is this a foul on the keeper?)

Cheers
 
The Referee Store

es1

RefChat Addict
Level 4 Referee
what @Anubis says is spot on, "safe, sensible, no surprises"

i'm sure you watch the pro game, so do all the players. they know minor contact on a keeper will get penalised. don't get too clever here, if you see contact on the keeper, whether it be minor and potentially inconsequential, penalise it
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
As above!

A - unless there’s an element of reckless/excessive force I’m saying it’s incidental to the keepers clearance. Play on.

B - I’d rather listen to a striker moan for 30 seconds than the whole defensive side moan for the rest of the game because it resulted in a goal. Play it safe & simple give the FK and peg it outta there to the drop zone!
 

JamesL

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
A) was the challenge careless, reckless, or use excessive force..if Yes pen and appropriate sanction. If no, play on.

B) again as above.

I think what you are referring to about goalkeeper protection is when, or when not, a keeper is in control and therefore can/can't be challenged for the ball and I believe this is where the safety element has been born out of.

A keeper is in control of the ball when it is between both hands, in one hand, between the hand and any surface or any part of the hand is touching the ball.

Once any one of those criteria are fulfilled the keeper cannot be challenged because he is in control of the ball and a free kick is awarded.

This has lead to, imo, a safety first approach in the GK favour and I think subconsciously we award GK free kicks for being challenged where we might not if they were another outfield player.
 

ggroves.2

---
Level 7 Referee
A) was the challenge careless, reckless, or use excessive force..if Yes pen and appropriate sanction. If no, play on.

B) again as above.

I think what you are referring to about goalkeeper protection is when, or when not, a keeper is in control and therefore can/can't be challenged for the ball and I believe this is where the safety element has been born out of.

A keeper is in control of the ball when it is between both hands, in one hand, between the hand and any surface or any part of the hand is touching the ball.

Once any one of those criteria are fulfilled the keeper cannot be challenged because he is in control of the ball and a free kick is awarded.

This has lead to, imo, a safety first approach in the GK favour and I think subconsciously we award GK free kicks for being challenged where we might not if they were another outfield player.
I used to play in goal, and I rarely found people flying through the bottom of me being penalised (then again I wasn't exactly playing in the highest levels of the already crap sunday league), but I just feel like there is a kuch greater expectation to call protection on the GK. Thanks for the reply though, appreciated
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I've given a penalty for the first - certainly wasn't popular, but I'm intrigued to hear any justification for how punching an opponent in the head can possibly be anything less than careless?

For the second, as James quite rightly points out there are situations where it cannot be legal to challenge the GK - therefore it's logical to infer that almost any contact at these times should be penalised. Certainly if the contact causes the keeper to drop the ball or fall, no way should it not be penalised. There is a degree of "safety first" to when this actually does get applied, but it's not used as excessively as some might have you think either.
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
I've given a penalty for the first - certainly wasn't popular, but I'm intrigued to hear any justification for how punching an opponent in the head can possibly be anything less than careless?
I’m viewing it in the same way I would a clash of heads while challenging for the same ball.

Players A & B both jump and challenge, player A wins the header. In the same motion of heading the ball, he follows through and makes contact with player B’s head.

Yes there are occasions where this could be careless, reckless or EF but in all likelihood you’d restart with a dropped ball and deem it a collision that is normal football contact.

Now replace player A with the goalkeeper and he is fully entitled to challenge with his hands and the contact could be treated exactly as above.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
I think you're being very charitable to the GK there. Unlike an outfield player, the GK isn't trying to play the ball with the same part of their body they see with. They have a wider field of vision, more control over hands than other player do with their head and are almost always going to be less injured and in less danger when their fists smash into an opponents head.

I can't see that as just incidental contact. The GK has punched an opponent! He doesn't just get to do that just because the ball was previously nearby.
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
I think you're being very charitable to the GK there. Unlike an outfield player, the GK isn't trying to play the ball with the same part of their body they see with. They have a wider field of vision, more control over hands than other player do with their head and are almost always going to be less injured and in less danger when their fists smash into an opponents head.

I can't see that as just incidental contact. The GK has punched an opponent! He doesn't just get to do that just because the ball was previously nearby.
There’s a HUGE difference between punching an opponent and making contact with them as a result of a clearance.

If a player jumps for the ball and accidentally lands on an opponent is that a stamp or an innocent result of an action they’re entitled to carry out?
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
There’s a HUGE difference between punching an opponent and making contact with them as a result of a clearance.

If a player jumps for the ball and accidentally lands on an opponent is that a stamp or an innocent result of an action they’re entitled to carry out?
Players have been sent off regularly for tackles that go through the ball and into opponent's legs. The ball being there doesn't entitle you to act as if the opponent isn't there - you have to account for the opponent and make sure your challenge remains safe even if you do get the ball perfectly first. That goes double when one player (the GK) likely has a better view and is putting themselves in less danger than the other player by challenging.

I get your point about landing on an opponent, but a) that's incidental contact after the challenge which I don't think applies to the actual follow-through of a challenge and b) that could still easily be careless at least if I didn't think enough care was taken to actively try and avoid contact.
 

Will_A

Premium Member
Premium Member
Level 4 Referee
Players have been sent off regularly for tackles that go through the ball and into opponent's legs. The ball being there doesn't entitle you to act as if the opponent isn't there - you have to account for the opponent and make sure your challenge remains safe even if you do get the ball perfectly first. That goes double when one player (the GK) likely has a better view and is putting themselves in less danger than the other player by challenging.

I get your point about landing on an opponent, but a) that's incidental contact after the challenge which I don't think applies to the actual follow-through of a challenge and b) that could still easily be careless at least if I didn't think enough care was taken to actively try and avoid contact.
Each to their own.

I stand by that there can very easily be occasions where the keepers actions in the OP can be a ‘play on’ scenario. Not all contact is foul contact.
 

RustyRef

Administrator
Staff member
You're going to find yourself with big problems if you give a penalty everytime a keeper punches the ball but follows through and makes contact with an opponent. No one in the game sees that as a foul, probably even including the player on the wrong end of it. Unless he has come flying out at force and landed a hell of a punch, in which case you start to wonder if it ticks careless, reckless or excessive force, but that rarely happens.

I like Will_A's example, a lot of bad injuries have been caused where two players jump to head the ball and one accidentally lands on the other, I'm sure that no one is going to take any disciplinary action for that.
 

GraemeS

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Maybe my thoughts on this are being coloured by the incident in my match, where the penalty couldn't be taken for a good 5 minutes because it took that long for the player to be treated after being punched in the head.

Incidental body-to-body contact is one thing but as I said before, we've all seen red cards for challenges that follow through in a dangerous manner. If you're punching the ball hard enough to clear it and then follow through to apply that force to an opponent's head, that's not going to be Incidental.
 

Russell Jones

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
Maybe my thoughts on this are being coloured by the incident in my match, where the penalty couldn't be taken for a good 5 minutes because it took that long for the player to be treated after being punched in the head.

Incidental body-to-body contact is one thing but as I said before, we've all seen red cards for challenges that follow through in a dangerous manner. If you're punching the ball hard enough to clear it and then follow through to apply that force to an opponent's head, that's not going to be Incidental.
Graeme, I think you're right that it is possible for a GK to commit a foul in the act of punching a ball clear. However, 9/10, the difference between the action of the GK and that of the player tackling for the ball, is that when the GK commits to the punch it's by no means obvious where the attacker's head(s) will end up being. Taken to an extreme, if GKs seriously needed to consider whether any of the nearby attackers might put themselves in harm's way, then they'd end up never punching the ball at all!

Football expects GK to punch the ball and very occasionally an opposition player might get harmed as a result ... on the other hand, if the GK misses the ball and solely makes contact with an opposition player then I think all involved would see this a PK
 

higdawgy

New Member
Level 2 Referee
You need to consider if a player going in for a header where the keeper is about to punch is playing in a dangerous manner, the same way if they tried to head a ball on the ground when someone goes to kick it...
 

Anubis

RefChat Addict
You need to consider if a player going in for a header where the keeper is about to punch is playing in a dangerous manner, the same way if they tried to head a ball on the ground when someone goes to kick it...

Attacker attempting to use head, at head height, is the expected, recognised and normal action in football
As is gk attempting to knock ball clear by use of hand

Attacker attempting to use head whilst ball on ground is not the expected practise

Attacker attempts to kick above the considered norm, we think, dangerous
Attacker attempts to head below the considered norm, we think, dangerous


they are nothing alike and no consideration is needed
 
Last edited:

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
You need to consider if a player going in for a header where the keeper is about to punch is playing in a dangerous manner, the same way if they tried to head a ball on the ground when someone goes to kick it...
Disagree. As far as I'm concerned, a player attempting to head a ball that is at head height is not playing in a dangerous manner.

As @Anubis points out, it's not at all analogous to a player trying to head a ball on the ground.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
The analogy more appropriate here is

OP:
Goalkeeper jumps into the air, punches a corner clear then his gloves connect with an attackers head, clearly by accident, after the attacker had challenged for the ball

Analogy:
Defender jumps into the air, headers a corner clear then his head connects with an attackers head, clearly by accident, after the attacker had challenged for the ball

It's all about expectations. A goalkeeper is expected to challenge for a head high ball with a punch the same as a defender is expected to do so with a header. They are both expected to do so with a certain level of care. That is why we have the definition for CRUEF.
 
Top