A&H

GK handling

A&H International
JamesL said:
Now bring that back to a handball offence, if GK touches the part of the ball outside the PA, inside the field of play - it's a direct free kick..if they touch the part of the ball outside the FOP but adjacent to the boundary of penalty area, that's fine because its still within an area where they can't commit a handball offence. Similarly if they touch the ball outside the field of play not adjacent to the penalty area then this is a handball offence.
Click to expand...
Where is that in the Laws? All I see is the GK can handle in the PA.
 
JamesL said:
Yeh that's what I meant.
Click to expand...
Which means, as the Law is written, with IFAB explanation of where a GK can handle the ball, it is a HB offense is the GK touches the part of the ball that has crossed the goal line while part of the ball is still on the line. And with the new off-the-field language, that means it is a PK.

Of course, that is ludicrous, and clearly not what the Laws mean, and any ref who gave a PK in that scenario would be chased off the field with torches and pitchforks. But it’s part of why I remain convinced the better interpretation is that the GK can handle the ball if the ball is in the PA rather than focusing on points of contact. (Which is what I have always been taught and have taught.) but IFAB makes the rules, err, Laws . . .
 
socal lurker said:
Which means, as the Law is written, with IFAB explanation of where a GK can handle the ball, it is a HB offense is the GK touches the part of the ball that has crossed the goal line while part of the ball is still on the line. And with the new off-the-field language, that means it is a PK.

Of course, that is ludicrous, and clearly not what the Laws mean, and any ref who gave a PK in that scenario would be chased off the field with torches and pitchforks. But it’s part of why I remain convinced the better interpretation is that the GK can handle the ball if the ball is in the PA rather than focusing on points of contact. (Which is what I have always been taught and have taught.) but IFAB makes the rules, err, Laws . . .
Click to expand...
I disagree, I see that area as belonging to the penalty area whilst the ball is in play and therefore the keeper is able to handle it there. Think that is supported by offences off the field of play being given according to the boundary of which they are committed closest too.
As i said first post, it's not explicit in law so what does football expect which I think is also in tune with the ifab guidance on these matters
 
JamesL said:
I disagree, I see that area as belonging to the penalty area whilst the ball is in play and therefore the keeper is able to handle it there. Think that is supported by offences off the field of play being given according to the boundary of which they are committed closest too.
As i said first post, it's not explicit in law so what does football expect which I think is also in tune with the ifab guidance on these matters
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree with the logic of how it should be handled. But the Laws don’t say that. (And until they added the part about offenses off the field of play, the logic IFAB is using on the GK here would have meant that a PK couldn’t have been given if a defender other than the GK stopped the ball from crossing the full goal line by touching the ball with his hands only behind the goal line, as the offense was outside the field. Of course, that was also never what was meant.)

I think IFAB is making the wrong choice here, but it’s their choice to make—and the reality is it is extremely rare in any game without VAR that we are going to see this specific incident with enough clarity to actually make a difference in what we call.
 
JamesL said:
And I come up with the same answer. I acknowledge the complexity, but I think we are over complicating it.

IF we move slightly away from handball for other direct free kick offences we use the point of contact. So the ball, 95% of the fouled player, can both be in the penalty area but if the point of contact is outside it's a direct free kick. The ball, 95% of the fouled player, can both be outside but the point of contact on the boundary line of the penalty area, it's a PK.
0.999999% of the ball, 100% of both players, offender and non offender can be outside field of play adjacent to the boundary of the PA and a PK is awarded.

Now bring that back to a handball offence, if GK touches the part of the ball outside the PA, inside the field of play - it's a direct free kick..if they touch the part of the ball outside the FOP but adjacent to the boundary of penalty area, that's fine because its still within an area where they can't commit a handball offence. Similarly if they touch the ball outside the field of play not adjacent to the penalty area then this is a handball offence.
Click to expand...

I'm going to cut this down to non complex definitions. If we were to spell this out in law for answer B we have to include this in law.

- for the purpose of handball, point of contact between the ball and and/arm is considered the location of the offence.

The law clearly states that "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area." This means (as fact) any player, keeper or not, deliberately touching the in play ball with hand outside the penalty area commits a handball offence. This with the inclusion of the above point for answer B means a goal keeper can now be guilty of giving a penalty away for a deliberate handball offence. Trying to find a way around this won't just work. If the location of the touch is outside the area it makes no difference if it's the keeper or a player as stated clearly in law. It just creates a tangle of conflicts and contradictions with no easy* way out.

Now let's say we have an inclusion in law to make answer A the correct answer

- The location of the handball offence is considered inside the penalty area if at the moment of contact any part of the ball is inside the penalty area.

This creates no conflict. Though I admit it may be inconsistent with point of contact for a foul comparison you made.

* We can however make answer B work but that requires adding complex logic/conditions/exceptions for when the in play ball is touched outside the FOP but when part of it is in PA, and sub conditions for keepers vs non keepers.
 
I'm also going to use a bit of law history to give more credibility to answer A. Not too many years ago, the restart for any offence outside of the field of play was a dropped ball (possibly an IFK in some case, memory fails me). At that time if a player touched a ball in play but the part outside of FOP, it was considered a DFK offence as the offence was considered inside the field of play.
 
socal lurker said:
Oh, I totally agree with the logic of how it should be handled. But the Laws don’t say that. (And until they added the part about offenses off the field of play, the logic IFAB is using on the GK here would have meant that a PK couldn’t have been given if a defender other than the GK stopped the ball from crossing the full goal line by touching the ball with his hands only behind the goal line, as the offense was outside the field. Of course, that was also never what was meant.)

I think IFAB is making the wrong choice here, but it’s their choice to make—and the reality is it is extremely rare in any game without VAR that we are going to see this specific incident with enough clarity to actually make a difference in what we call.
Click to expand...
Think we'll have to split the difference here as I think it's totally right way to go. The world would not cope with a ball being 0.01% on the PA line, the GK reaching almost a foot out of the PA to claw a ball back in. I know thats an extreme example but in any example if the ball is touched outside PA the average punter would expect a handball offence to be called. I think we largely agree on the expected outcome though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top