GK in control?

[Murri O]

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Thoughts please.

Thanks.

 

[es1]

Correct decision

 

[one]

Relevant parts of law 12:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area, commits any of the following offences:
• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched another player

AND

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

It was not a save and he was in control of it - ie, we would not have allowed a challenge on him/ball when he was touching the ball. And technically he did release it when he was standing over it, ie we would have stopped the 6 second count and allowed any challenges on the ball.

I think the ref did well.

 

[Murri O]

Relevant parts of law 12:

AND

It was not a save and he was in control of it - ie, we would not have allowed a challenge on him/ball when he was touching the ball. And technically he did release it when he was standing over it, ie we would have stopped the 6 second count and allowed any challenges on the ball.

I think the ref did well.

I guess the question is was it a deliberate backpass given how far he had to go to get it?

So I'm OK with that except the ball isn't between the hand and the ground so that bits redundant.

The next bit is 'with any part of the "hands"'. Is that 'hands' plural? If it's 'hands' singular shouldn't it have been worded 'with any part of the hand(s)'.

Or is that covered off by this bit 'A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:'

Thanks

 

[one]

So I'm OK with that except the ball isn't between the hand and the ground so that bits redundant.

The next bit is 'with any part of the "hands"'. Is that 'hands' plural? If it's 'hands' singular shouldn't it have been worded 'with any part of the hand(s)'.

Thanks

I think any argument around plural/singular would be futile. Ifab has never been good at wording. For starters why would you say "any part" of "the hands". Seem contradictory. "Any part" implies singular while "hands" is not. The intent here is if the ball is being touched by the keeper.

I think what we need to concentrate on is if we would have considered this to be an offence by an attacker if the ball was kicked at the same time as the keeper was touching it. The answer to that should be yes which means the keeper is considered to be in control of it at that moment. Now if he picks it up straight away, we can say he has not released it or at least not intended to release it. But by standing over it, the intent/action is clear.

 

[Murri O]

I think any argument around plural/singular would be futile. Ifab has never been good at wording. For starters why would you say "any part" of "the hands". Seem contradictory. "Any part" implies singular while "hands" is not. The intent here is if the ball is being touched by the keeper.

I think what we need to concentrate on is if we would have considered this to be an offence by an attacker if the ball was kicked at the same time as the keeper was touching it. The answer to that should be yes which means the keeper is considered to be in control of it at that moment. Now if he picks it up straight away, we can say he has not released it or at least not intended to release it. But by standing over it, the intent/action is clear.

I'm probably overthinking it.

From the looks of it it was a backpass. In that case he can't pick it up in anyway.

I'm assuming it's a backpass because the ref(?) is telling him not to pick it up.

I guess the question is was it a deliberate backpass given how far he had to go to get it?

I'm assuming if it wasn't a deliberate backpass he would have been OK there.

 

[one]

I'm probably overthinking it.

From the looks of it it was a backpass. In that case he can't pick it up in anyway.

I'm assuming it's a backpass because the ref(?) is telling him not to pick it up.

I guess the question is was it a deliberate backpass given how far he had to go to get it?

I'm assuming if it wasn't a deliberate backpass he would have been OK there.

I think you are over thinking it. For a 'backpass' to be an offence, all he has to do is touch it with the hand, picking it up is irrelevant. So if the ref thought it's a back pass he should have blown after the first touch. Also the ref said "you have already controlled it with your hand".

On a related note "picking the ball up" is not a thing in the laws for any offence. Touching the ball with hand is.

 

[Murri O]

I think you are over thinking it. For a 'backpass' to be an offence, all he has to do is touch it with the hand, picking it up is irrelevant. So if the ref thought it's a back pass he should have blown after the first touch. Also the ref said "you have already controlled it with your hand".

On a related note "picking the ball up" is not a thing in the laws for any offence. Touching the ball with hand is.

Apologies for dragging this out.

So ball about to cross the line for a goal from a backpass. GK stops the ball with his hand. IDFK and a red for DOGSO?

 

[one]

Apologies for dragging this out.

So ball about to cross the line for a goal from a backpass. GK stops the ball with his hand. IDFK and a red for DOGSO?

IFK but not DOGSO as keepers can only be sanction for one type of handling offence inside their own area. And that it's not this scenario. I'll let you find out what that scenario is

Edit. Technically this is denying an obvious goal. But any requirement for booking is trumped by the clause that prevents booking keeper for handling offences inside the area.