Goal keeper control of the ball
- Thread starter SM
- Start date
or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms
I'm assuming this refers to holding the ball in their arms / hands
except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
I think they're trying to make it clear that if a keeper makes a save / block where he used his hands or arms then he is not considered to have or have been in control of the ball
I'm assuming this refers to holding the ball in their arms / hands
except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
I think they're trying to make it clear that if a keeper makes a save / block where he used his hands or arms then he is not considered to have or have been in control of the ball
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
I would simpify it as 'any deliberate touch of the ball by the GK with his hands or arms means he is deemed to be in control of the ball UNLESS it was a save.'
Basically, we're still in a world where a deliberate parry (rather than save) cannot then be followed by the GK picking up the ball
Basically, we're still in a world where a deliberate parry (rather than save) cannot then be followed by the GK picking up the ball
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
Wow. I don't think I could word the law this badly if I was trying.
So, if the keeper picks up a loose ball he can't be challenged, but if he's holding it after saving a shot he can hold it for as long as he likes and you can kick it out of his hands?
I think they're trying to clarify that the keeper bouncing the ball is in his control, but the ball bouncing to the ground after the keeper saves it is not in his control. That's my best guess, but only because I can't figure out what else they're trying to say.
Because, y'know, out of all of the problems with the LOTG, that was apparently a major loophole that was causing problems all over the world.
So, if the keeper picks up a loose ball he can't be challenged, but if he's holding it after saving a shot he can hold it for as long as he likes and you can kick it out of his hands?
I think they're trying to clarify that the keeper bouncing the ball is in his control, but the ball bouncing to the ground after the keeper saves it is not in his control. That's my best guess, but only because I can't figure out what else they're trying to say.
Because, y'know, out of all of the problems with the LOTG, that was apparently a major loophole that was causing problems all over the world.
one
RefChat Addict
You are misreading it but i don't blame you or anyone else who misread it.Wow. I don't think I could word the law this badly if I was trying.
So, if the keeper picks up a loose ball he can't be challenged, but if he's holding it after saving a shot he can hold it for as long as he likes and you can kick it out of his hands?
I think they're trying to clarify that the keeper bouncing the ball is in his control, but the ball bouncing to the ground after the keeper saves it is not in his control. That's my best guess, but only because I can't figure out what else they're trying to say.
Because, y'know, out of all of the problems with the LOTG, that was apparently a major loophole that was causing problems all over the world.
I think what is meant is that the initial touch by the hand after an accidental rebound or save is not considered to be control but any touches after that is considered control.
This then means if a striker challenges and kicks the ball (not C/R/E) at the exact same time as the keeper touching the ball in a save, then the striker has not committed an offence.
The ball drops after a save and striker kicks it, no offence.
The ball drops after a save, the keeper touches it again (if not considered a saved this time) and the striker kicks it, then its an offence against the striker.
I like @Russell Jones 's definition.
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
You poms definitely do not speak the same English as the rest of us...... 
RefJef
RefChat Addict
There is nothing badly written about the law at all, it is very clear if you break it down:
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body). Simple and clear
OR
by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
Meaning that ANY other touch gives control unless a rebound or a save. So if a keeper puts out an arm and pats down a ball that is in the air but not going towards goal, that is control, and the keeper cannot pick that ball up again. Also simple and clear. Some people here seem to be mixing up the ideas of CONTROL and POSSESSION. What the law says is that a keeper who parries the ball with hand or arm had control, and gave it up and so cannot now pick up the ball.
The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:
• the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body). Simple and clear
OR
by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
Meaning that ANY other touch gives control unless a rebound or a save. So if a keeper puts out an arm and pats down a ball that is in the air but not going towards goal, that is control, and the keeper cannot pick that ball up again. Also simple and clear. Some people here seem to be mixing up the ideas of CONTROL and POSSESSION. What the law says is that a keeper who parries the ball with hand or arm had control, and gave it up and so cannot now pick up the ball.
Unless it's part of the same action/movement/play/what-have-you (ie, ball was too hard to easily catch, knocks it down and picks it up as part of the single action).
So why does no-one apply the law? Keepers parry it all the time (at top level) rather than catch it and I've never seen a FK given if they then pick it up.
I genuinely don't recall the last time I've seen this live and I watch an awful lot of football! Are you able to give an example from a match last season?
They do.
Good example of such? England friendly last year... about 12-13 mins into the game, this happened (I can't recall the opponent offhand though)
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Bearing in mind that the word "parry" no longer appears in the Laws of the Game, I suppose it all comes down to the referee's opinion of how to interpret "except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save."
I think many referees (especially it would seem, at higher levels) have a very "generous" interpretation of what constitutes a save. Many times, what most of us would call a "parry" (in old money) is let go as being a kind of save where the goalkeeper didn't feel comfortable enough to actually catch the ball - even though in many cases they probably could have caught it if they really wanted to.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Just as a footnote to this, I think this is (yet another) example of where the attempts of the IFAB to "improve" the wording over the years, probably has had the opposite effect. I think they would have done better to stick closer to the original wording introduced as IFAB Decision 17 to Law 12 in 1991. Taking out the mention of parrying (as they have just done for this year's update) and a few other extraneous bits, the wording for the core part of the principle from 1991 would read as follows:
I think that embodies exactly the same meaning as the current Law but is easier to understand.
I think that embodies exactly the same meaning as the current Law but is easier to understand.
At least they've got rid of the apparent use of "control" and "possession" to mean (presumably) the same thing. But by removing the reference to a parry (possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball) does that imply that parrying is still "control" or is a parry now deemed to be a "save"?