RefSix

France v Brazil WWC

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
In REALITY thEY LEave iT to VAr if the baLL goES In ThE nET qUiCKlY ON a DElayED FlAg
Simply false. That is why we have seen flagged OS reversed: the AR delays the flag, the goal scores, the flag comes up. Then VAR reviews and concludes the delayed flag was wrong. When the AR has seen OS but is delaying, they are supposed to be telling the R that immediately through the com set so the R will know the flag will be coming.

ARs are evaluated on the calls they make. If they fail to flag an OS correctly, they get dinged. So if an AR is improperly just swallowing the flag, so to speak, and just letting the VAR do her job, the AR will be poorly rated.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
There’s no way we can say the keeper had control of that ball
True but does it matter? They had to decide whether the keeper had possession, and from my understanding of the way it is written, she did and so she was not allowed to be challenged.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
True but does it matter? They had to decide whether the keeper had possession, and from my understanding of the way it is written, she did and so she was not allowed to be challenged.
The way what is written? I don’t know what language you are referring to.

I found this play quite odd and still haven’t come to terms with it. Different people are clearly seeing it differently. I see a GK barely getting hands and being unable to grasp the ball. I see a fair ball when contact is made. IMHO there was no foul (obviously a FIFA VAR and R disagree with me).

But it also looks like there was ball-arm contact, which would be an offense in the new laws, even if totally inadvertent. And contact with arms seems to be considered an objective call, so easy to pull back the goal for that.

So it seems to me we got to the right place for the wrong reason.

That call would certainly be a bigger story if Brazil had won.
 

cwyeary

RefChat Addict
True but does it matter? They had to decide whether the keeper had possession, and from my understanding of the way it is written, she did and so she was not allowed to be challenged.
So here's the law


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save


I thought it looked like she had pushed the ball away and in no way had control of the ball as specified above.
 

one

RefChat Addict
Level 7 Referee
I can see how this can be given as a foul (nothing to do with control) but fail to see how it's a clear and obvious error when not given as a foul.

One way to justify it as a foul is PIDAM with contact. Another way is a careless charge. You can think of it similar to a player having a kick and an opponent put their foot in the path of the follow through which causes a clash of legs. The fact that the ball was cleared into the attacker should be irrelevant. If the ball was cleared away from the attacker by the keeper with the same subsequent contact, most of us would see it as a clear foul.
 

RobOda

RefChat Addict
Level 3 Referee
The way what is written? I don’t know what language you are referring to.
12.2:

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) 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 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
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).


With the VAR replays that I watched, there is no question that the keeper controls the ball for the purposes of the above text, she gains control and the subsequent challenge takes it out of her hands, and hence, it is a foul.

That's how I read it anyway.

I thought it looked like she had pushed the ball away and in no way had control of the ball as specified above.
In real time maybe it looked that way. But regardless, strictly speaking her hands are in contact with the ball, she's therefore in control and cannot be challenged. I don't see it as being a save or a rebound.
 

socal lurker

RefChat Addict
I see your argument, but I don't think the poorly crafted words really mean there is control here simply because a hand touched the ball. Even looking at the language, I think it "rebounds" rather than is controlled. Of course, my opinion doesn't matter....
 

Sheffields Finest

Maybe I'm foolish, maybe I'm blind!
Level 7 Referee
Back in my day I loved shoving one on the keeper to see if he was up for the days proceedings. It was like a rite of passage in earning your goalkeeper spurs, most were, they were bat crazy...
 

Peter Grove

RefChat Addict
I thought it looked like she had pushed the ball away and in no way had control of the ball as specified above.
I thought that at first - but the more I saw the later replays, the more it looked like she pushed it onto the French player who then pushed it back against the keeper's hands. So at the final moment when the player's shoulder made contact with the ball to propel it into the net, the keeper had hands on it again. Which means she had control and couldn't be challenged.
 

QuaverRef

I used to be indecisive but now i'm not so sure
Level 6 Referee
So at the final moment when the player's shoulder made contact with the ball to propel it into the net, the keeper had hands on it again. Which means she had control and couldn't be challenged.
I understand that the wording of the LOTG supports that, but can we seriously consider an opponent knocking the ball with their shoulder into the palm of a goalkeeper mid-flight as being in control? It was rebounding all over the place
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
Top