A&H

Graham Poll

J

JH

RefChat Addict
If you're watching Chelsea - Southampton on BT Sport then I'm sure you're just as confused as most when Graham Poll has repeated over and over:

"Once a goalkeeper jumps into the air, he cannot be touched even slightly"

Claims it's written in law and the pundits have just accepted it.

Someone point me to where it says a goalkeeper can't be touched...

Note: He didn't say "when they are in control of the ball" either
 
The Referee Store
I've posted numerous times lamenting similar clap trap spouted by the referee commentators on BT Sport. Although i wasn't tuned in for this latest contribtuion
 
Odd.

We seem to have quite a few former referees that aren't adverse to putting out controversial/misleading statements out there. I suspect, he is referring to Law 12.1 and 12.2 Impediment - Delaying, blocking or preventing an opponent's action or movement. Perhaps he has taken the view that a keeper jumping for the ball may not be challenged as it would essentially be impeding him?

That's pretty woolly though...
 
I always penalise players who push or significantly nudges opponents while they are off the ground as it is very dangerous, be that the keeper or an outfield player. Without the push they will come down on their feet as planned, with the push they could have any number of bad and dangerous landings.

It could be classed as charges, jumps at in terms of offences that are penalised by direct free kicks. Also could come under playing in a dangerous manner, take your pick really.
 
As I see it, an outfield player and a keeper going for the ball in the air is exactly the same as two outfield players going for it. The only differences are that the keeper can use their hands (if inside the penalty area, of course). Keepers given far too much protection for this sort of rubbish (unless they have the ball under control).
 
RustyRef said:
I always penalise players who push or significantly nudges opponents while they are off the ground as it is very dangerous, be that the keeper or an outfield player. Without the push they will come down on their feet as planned, with the push they could have any number of bad and dangerous landings.

It could be classed as charges, jumps at in terms of offences that are penalised by direct free kicks. Also could come under playing in a dangerous manner, take your pick really.
Click to expand...
All perfectly reasonable, but other than the fact the GK is going to be in the air more than any given outfield player, that doesn't give any special protection to a GK over an outfield player?
 
Back in the day goalkeepers were fair game for a cheeky foul as they collected the ball in the air. It was a common occurrence by some teams to chuck some high balls into the mixer early on and see if the keeper was up to a bit of tough day. I've no problem that they deserve some protection but to not be touched in any way is a bit too far in my opinion. Most keepers are a bit nuts to be even there so they enjoy a physical battle. On the floor is a different thing as I think they need all our protection as boots and heads / faces / hands are not a good mix...
 
First view it looks a foul to me, not a massive Poll fan but there is enough of a shove before the ball is caught to call it as a foul. IMO
 
If this was a challenge for a header between two outfield players it would have had no chance of a foul. I don't see how it can be a foul if one of them is a keeper. Contact was before the ball arrived with both players challenging for space to go for the ball with nothing careless. The law says the keeper should be allowed to release the ball, nothing about allowing him to gain possession of it. .

Its is common practice to give keepers more protection and I think that is "what football wants" but nothing in law that says that.

RustyRef said:
I always penalise players who push or significantly nudges opponents while they are off the ground as it is very dangerous, be that the keeper or an outfield player. Without the push they will come down on their feet as planned, with the push they could have any number of bad and dangerous landings.

It could be classed as charges, jumps at in terms of offences that are penalised by direct free kicks. Also could come under playing in a dangerous manner, take your pick really.
Click to expand...
So if in that challenge, if the attacker went up in the air for a header and the keeper made the same contact on the attacker (reverse the roles), would you give a penalty? Anyway in the actual incident they were both in the air when contact was made.
 
RobOda said:
Perhaps he has taken the view that a keeper jumping for the ball may not be challenged as it would essentially be impeding him?
Click to expand...
RustyRef said:
It could be classed as charges, jumps at in terms of offences that are penalised by direct free kicks. Also could come under playing in a dangerous manner, take your pick really.
Click to expand...
A referee could, if they wished, decide that a challenge on a keeper who is off the ground is illegal using any of the reasonings mentioned above or, if he has contacted the ball with the hands, the clause that says a keeper cannot be challenged in that situation.

However none of that translates into saying that a keeper cannot be challenged when off the ground.
 
I try to consider whether the challenging player is getting anywhere near the ball. The typical height of a keeper and the added benefit of outstretched arms means they are capable of catching balls higher than most outfield players can typically jump. If the challenging player isn't getting near the ball then it's usually a foul for me.
 
Where in the Laws does it say 'within the six yard area, keepers are protected'? Where in the book, does the Law differentiate between a keeper and an outfield player in terms of what constitutes a foul tackle. I think that's it's reasonable to give a foul in this case for 'charging an opponent', but the televised discussion seems sloppy at best in the way that this FT decision has been reached. If i've missed something as a level 7 referee, then fair enough, but surely Mr Poll can't be afforded the same latitude if he is making stuff up!
 
Big Cat said:
Where in the Laws does it say 'within the six yard area, keepers are protected'? Where in the book, does the Law differentiate between a keeper and an outfield player in terms of what constitutes a foul tackle. I think that's it's reasonable to give a foul in this case for 'charging an opponent', but the televised discussion seems sloppy at best in the way that this FT decision has been reached. If i've missed something as a level 7 referee, then fair enough, but surely Mr Poll can't be afforded the same latitude if he is making stuff up!
Click to expand...

Spot on with this. I expect it from pundits on MOTD and such like, but for a former referee just to make up a random line is why us doing grassroots football get put under pressure.

I've always been one to give fouls to the keeper if I feel the attacker has charged the keeper or not played the ball etc, but never had I made a decision purely based on whether the goalkeeper has been 'slightly touched'.

What is more frustrating is BT just roll with it, say 'fair enough, hes an ex ref so he must be correct'. He SHOULD be correct as this is now his job but there should be someone doing some sort of research as well, not just go on blind faith.
 
The question is, why do referees tend to always edge on the side of giving free-kicks for slight contact on the GK? I've witnessed it hundreds of times now. Two outfield players make contact with each other, one wins the header and it's "play on" because the contact isn't enough. GK goes up for the ball, expects the contact and plays for the FK and always tends to get it. Where does it say in law we have to give the GK that amount of protection? When a GK tries to pull that with me, I might be the only ref or two out of 10 who says "that's not enough contact, he barely touched you" but if the level of contact is fair game on an outfield player, why do we allow the GK to be protected to that extent?

It's a strange one for me and a pet peeve because because GK's can charge out into their six yard box and collect the ball from the air whilst giving the attacker a (fair) knock in my opinion but the second a GK gets touched it's a freekick and they know this and they play up to it.

And I think the above comments from the likes of Gerrard, Lampard etc genuinely show that sometimes even the top players have much difference expectations on what constitutes a foul and what doesn't, and not for their own personal gain. If I am a coach and that happens, I'm not blaming the decision, I'm telling the GK that he needs to be stronger etc so it's just a little example, and maybe why I referee in a certain style and have a certain view on certain incidents that maybe differ from the majority on certain occasions.
 
Last edited:
Anybody who comes out publically and admits they were not able to control the match they were appointed to BEFORE the teams even got out the tunnel then of course embarrasses himself at a WC in front of the watching milliions has for me, their right to get paid to pass comment on refereeing revoked.
 
Foul for me this one.
The reason for me is that keepers are allowed to compete for the ball in a different way to the players and in this case the attackers actions impacted on the keeper who was legally challenging for the ball.
The attacker, and I admit that it is a just a nudge, nudges the keeper just as he is about to make the catch which is the very action that causes to keeper to drop the catch. Further to this he then backs into the keeper causing him to fumble over the line. All the while he never once makes contact with the ball or makes any effort to challenge for the ball properly. His initial jump he has very little chance of making contact with the ball and then his follow on actions all impact on the keeper.
I dont think you can compare this to two outfield players as an outfield player wont be lining up a catch for starters.
This isnt about giving a keeper more protection than an outfield player its about an attackwe making foul contact with the keeper that clearly impacts his ability to challenge/collect the ball. The mistake is not of the keepers making and I think a bit unfair to say so.
 
I saw no football over the weekend on tv
Have seen this now
Foul
As much as I am lost as to Polls keeper protection and 6 yard box rule, I would also agree any referee will give that. Safety first. As harsh as that seems on the attackers.

I agree with above, Austin nudges into the gk, knowing he will get penalised, and not expecting to "get away with it"

right in the LOTG, possibly not, right in match control and giving the simple easy decision...yes
Which comes with experience...and note who the ref was...the most? experienced and ex highest ranked ref EPL has to offer

Football expects... how many Southampton players doing war dances and chasing Atkinson round the park? None
Give that as a goal and you can reference Andreas Frisk.
 
NorthLondonRef said:
The question is, why do referees tend to always edge on the side of giving free-kicks for slight contact on the GK?
Click to expand...

The same reason most of us call the handling offenses in non-dangerous areas that we wouldn't give a PK for. The players expect it to be a foul and it helps with match control. It's the same reason we give the defender the free kick when he falls to the ground shielding the ball and the striker puts their forearm in the back. It's an easy foul to sell and the moment you wave play on and the other team scores, you've dug yourself a huge hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top