A&H

If goalkeeper is on the ground with one hand outstretched and on the ball with the ball on the ground. Can attacker kick the ball out of the keepers

Status
Not open for further replies.

newref

Active Member
If the goalkeeper is on the ground with one hand outstretched and on the ball and with the ball on the ground. Can the attacker kick the ball if he does not touch the keepers hand?
 
The Referee Store
If the goalkeeper is on the ground with one hand outstretched and on the ball and with the ball on the ground. Can the attacker kick the ball if he does not touch the keepers hand?
No. Law is clear, the goalkeeper is in control of the ball with the hand and an opponent may not challenge for it.
Sanction is an IFK for the goalkeeper's team.
 
And if you want actual chapter and verse for this, it is as follows:
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).

This wording appears in Law 12, Section 2, entitled "Indirect Free Kick."

Of course, if in challenging for the ball the player makes contact with the keeper in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, the outcome would be a direct free kick.
 
Last edited:
And if you want actual chapter and verse for this, it is as follows:


This wording appears in Law 12, Section 2, entitled "Indirect Free Kick."

Of course, if in challenging for the ball the player makes contact with the keeper in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, the outcome would be a direct free kick.
If an offence involves contact at all, "it is penalised by a direct free kick", per Law 12 Section 1.
 
And if you want actual chapter and verse for this, it is as follows:


This wording appears in Law 12, Section 2, entitled "Indirect Free Kick."

Of course, if in challenging for the ball the player makes contact with the keeper in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force, the outcome would be a direct free kick.

Interesting. I must confess to not having read that part for a while.
The text you quote talks about hands/arms only but I'd always considered that even if the GK momentarily "smothers" the ball with any part of his body eg. has the ball wedged between his stomach/chest/hips and the ground, then he's still considered to be "in posession" and therefore can't be challenged.
Notwithstanding of course that doing so may invite a judgement of "PIADM" from the referee.
 
If an offence involves contact at all, "it is penalised by a direct free kick", per Law 12 Section 1.
If you've already decided what the player was doing was an offence (because of the provisions regarding goalkeeper control of the ball, for instance) then yes. However I was allowing for the hypothetical possibility that neither that part of the Laws nor any other part was broken, in which case it is still possible to make physical contact with an opponent and for it not to be an offence
 
If you've already decided what the player was doing was an offence (because of the provisions regarding goalkeeper control of the ball, for instance) then yes. However I was allowing for the hypothetical possibility that neither that part of the Laws nor any other part was broken, in which case it is still possible to make physical contact with an opponent and for it not to be an offence
In the context of the post you were replying to, saying that contact during this challenge which ITOOTR is CREF is a DFK, implies that contact which is not CREF is not a DFK, just the IFK for making the challenge.
However, since the challenge is the offence, and an offence with contact is DFK, it does not matter (in terms of the FK type) whether it is CREF or not, only that it occurred.
Does this clarify what I mean to suggest in terms of the statement's accuracy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top