A&H

Liv v Utd

It's a foul for me. But I am not sure if it was C&O. English football has let ones worse than this go. Many time with VAR in recent games.

Has anyone noticed all replay in VAR are slow mo now? I havn't seen one single VAR replay at full speed this season. At least not on TV anyway.
Not sure we get a roll of what the VAR is doing. Pretty sure that's the broadcaster.
 
The Referee Store
At least I now know what players will expect me to give for such challenges like this.

Tbh I struggle to see it being trully careless and DDG and the rest of the team only kick off when Liverpool score - if the clearance had gone out of the box I bet they would have just got on with the game.

Horrible to see them crowd the ref and all should be visibly booked on the FOP not fined discreetly after the event.

(And I'm a United fan)
We aren't talking cruef here.
This is a challenging keeper for the ball when he is in control which can't be done in any manner.
2 outfield players there's no foul there. It becomes an offence as soon as DDG has the ball touching his hand.
 
We aren't talking cruef here.
This is a challenging keeper for the ball when he is in control which can't be done in any manner.
2 outfield players there's no foul there. It becomes an offence as soon as DDG has the ball touching his hand.
You are taking the law too literally here. While I see this challenge being a foul (careless) it is not for the reason that you mention. That clause was crated to couple with the 6 second rule so that once in control they can freely release the ball. In this case the challenge began when the keeper was not in control of the ball and well and truly was mid flight when the keeper got hands to the ball. If we were to interpret the law for challenging keepers literally, no one can go near keepers just in case the keeper gets a slight touch on the ball with their hand. There are many many case in every game (just about every corner when keepers parry the ball) when the challenge starts before the keeper touches the ball and continues after he touches it, yet no one sees them or expects them as a foul.
 
You are taking the law too literally here. While I see this challenge being a foul (careless) it is not for the reason that you mention. That clause was crated to couple with the 6 second rule so that once in control they can freely release the ball. In this case the challenge began when the keeper was not in control of the ball and well and truly was mid flight when the keeper got hands to the ball. If we were to interpret the law for challenging keepers literally, no one can go near keepers just in case the keeper gets a slight touch on the ball with their hand. There are many many case in every game (just about every corner when keepers parry the ball) when the challenge starts before the keeper touches the ball and continues after he touches it, yet no one sees them or expects them as a foul.
I disagree. My main reason is the law could not be written any clearer. ..."or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms" is explicit, whether intended, or not.
It then goes on to say except when it rebounds off the keeper or the keeper has made a save; so as you suggest,when the keeper punches or parries it he is not considered in control, in law, thus can be challenged.
In this case DDG is not saving, he is catching the ball, ie taking control, almost does so to, and without the challenge, starting before or not, he does so comfortably.
That said, I can support a careless challenge iTOOTR, however, if that was two outfield players I wouldn't have said it was a foul, imo.
 
It then goes on to say except when it rebounds off the keeper or the keeper has made a save; so as you suggest,when the keeper punches or parries it he is not considered in control, in law, thus can be challenged.
A corner kick is going across the goal (not the direction of in to or it), the keeper punches it away. Yo consider that a rebound or a save?

That said, I can support a careless challenge iTOOTR, however, if that was two outfield players I wouldn't have said it was a foul, imo.
I wouldn't consider it careless for two outfield players either. I have mention this before. More care has to be taken when challenging keepers as their role dictates exposing their ribs and vulnerable sections of their body. In this case, the keeper actually got two hands on the ball and the challenge made contact with the hands and spilt it out.
 
I wonder if the FA may chuck a charge at them for failing to control and surrounding the ref!! Fred had a few tugs from memory!!!
 
A corner kick is going across the goal (not the direction of in to or it), the keeper punches it away. Yo consider that a rebound or a save?
I think rebound fits the closest. There is no definition of a rebound in the lotg so we have to fallback to real life definitions:
Bounce back through the air after hitting something hard.
Punching or parrying causes the ball to travel back through the air after hitting something hard ie the keepers hand.
There are also many scenarios where the keeper punches the ball away where attackers aren't challenging the keeper, they are merely in his vicinity challenging for the ball. Keeper beats them to it, where we can say they didn't challenge the keeper. The keeper challenged them, if you like. (probably not explained well but ai hope you get my meaning.)
In this case, the keeper actually got two hands on the ball and the challenge made contact with the hands and spilt it out.
That's almost a text book definition of control.

I am happy if you want to say its a careless challenge. I don't disagree. After all it is always ITOOTR.
 

This isn't difficult. I stated it was correct being a foul but my question was purely asking what VVD could have done differently. I'm only saying that his eyes were on the ball to show that he was going for the ball, not the man. and again, as above, I never suggested this was a consideration for the foul not be given, it's simply a question about what an attacking player should do in this scenario
 
I’m with the right hon @JamesL here

(And @one knows the definition for a save perfectly well... get out of the wrong side of the bed (or planet) chief?)
I Don't get it. Where did I go wrong with the definition of save?


I think rebound fits the closest. There is no definition of a rebound in the lotg so we have to fallback to real life definitions:
All well and good untill you do that for all other cases of rebound in the good book. Surly that 'rebound' does reset offside.


There are also many scenarios where ...
We can agree on those cases but the OP isn't one of those.

That's almost a text book definition of control.
I am not debating that. I am saying the class for control and challenge doesn't apply here because the challenge started well before the ball arrived.

Let's put it this way, if this challenged only made contact between them with the feet. Keeper caught the ball and the spilt it, not because of the challenge or contact, but because of poor handling, you would have problems if you have a FK for 'the challnge'
 
Last edited:
This, above all else, is what infuriates me about an outfield player and a goalkeeper challenging for the ball. For some ridiculous reason goalkeepers are an overprotected species!! They have the wonderful advantage of being able to use their hands in their own penalty area. Both players had there eyes on the ball and were moving towards it. Yes there was contact but in no way was it a foul in my opinion. Had De Gea punched the ball instead of trying to catch it play would have continued without a foul. Then having watched the same replay as the VAR numpty in the studio, I still couldn't see it as a foul. Anywhere else on the FOP between two opposing players and play would simply have continued. Like I say, this really infuriates me. I'll bet the VAR guy told the Ref its probably better you award a foul so a riot doesn't break out!! Riudicilous!!! (End of rant).
 
I Don't get it. Where did I go wrong with the definition of save?



All well and good untill you do that for all other cases of rebound in the good book. Surly that 'rebound' does reset offside.



We can agree on those cases but the OP isn't one of those.


I am not debating that. I am saying the class for control and challenge doesn't apply here because the challenge started well before the ball arrived.

Let's put it this way, if this challenged only made contact between them with the feet. Keeper caught the ball and the spilt it, not because of the challenge or contact, but because of poor handling, you would have problems if you have a FK for 'the challnge'
Myast question here then, as I know we won't agree...
Where does it say that challenging the keeper is okay so long as the challenge starts before he is considered in control.
The answer is, it doesn't, only when the keeper is considered under control.

To reverse your own scenario. Keeper has the ball between hand and floor, but an attacker slides in and cleanly wins the ball, but the challenge started before the keeper was in control, so that's okay?
 
It doesn't , that is why I refered to the intent of it.

I see your scenario too and obviously my 'definition' is not correct too in that context and clearly the intent is to stop that from happening, but it makes sense in the OP context. Let's put it down to another law that leaves a lot to be desired.
 
That clause was crated to couple with the 6 second rule so that once in control they can freely release the ball.
I don't see that as being the case. The 'six second rule' was introduced in 2000. The first time the laws included a provision about a player not being allowed to challenge a keeper when they're in control of the ball was in 2007. Conceptually, I don't see them as being particularly closely related. The typical situation where the keeper is being restricted by the six second rule (in as much as they ever are) is when they're standing there with the ball in their hands.

I think the restriction on challenging is more aimed at the situation where the keeper is trying to gather the ball (either on the ground or in the air) and a player is trying to kick or knock the ball out of the keeper's hands. It's especially important to protect the keeper while they're diving at the ball on the ground, to prevent them being kicked in the head (or body, or hands or whatever) but it's also important to protect them while they've got their arms extended above their head which leaves their whole body exposed and vulnerable.

In any event, whatever the reason why the provision was first introduced, I don't think there's any doubt that the actual wording of the law is fulfilled here.

The law says:
A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when: the ball is between the hands [...]
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).

In this image, de Gea clearly has the ball between the hands and is clearly being challenged by van Dijk.

Screenshot_20200120-173317.png
 
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

This sentence (one line in the book) is stupid
The second statement completely obfuscates the first. It makes me think that the first statement is the ordinary definition of control, whereas the second statement leaves the door open for other situations of control (like holding the ball in one hand)
Complete nonsense
 
Last edited:
I don't see that as being the case. The 'six second rule' was introduced in 2000. The first time the laws included a provision about a player not being allowed to challenge a keeper when they're in control of the ball was in 2007. Conceptually, I don't see them as being particularly closely related. The typical situation where the keeper is being restricted by the six second rule (in as much as they ever are) is when they're standing there with the ball in their hands.

I think the restriction on challenging is more aimed at the situation where the keeper is trying to gather the ball (either on the ground or in the air) and a player is trying to kick or knock the ball out of the keeper's hands. It's especially important to protect the keeper while they're diving at the ball on the ground, to prevent them being kicked in the head (or body, or hands or whatever) but it's also important to protect them while they've got their arms extended above their head which leaves their whole body exposed and vulnerable.

In any event, whatever the reason why the provision was first introduced, I don't think there's any doubt that the actual wording of the law is fulfilled here.

The law says:


In this image, de Gea clearly has the ball between the hands and is clearly being challenged by van Dijk.

View attachment 4023
I can't remember the exact jump above so I can be corrected here, but if De Gea is jumping forward and VVD is jumping backwards, if De Gea claims the ball in the air can it still be considered a foul if the direction of his jump is into the jumping VVD (I hope that makes sense)
 
I don't see that as being the case. The 'six second rule' was introduced in 2000. The first time the laws included a provision about a player not being allowed to challenge a keeper when they're in control of the ball was in 2007. Conceptually, I don't see them as being particularly closely related. The typical situation where the keeper is being restricted by the six second rule (in as much as they ever are) is when they're standing there with the ball in their hands.

I think the restriction on challenging is more aimed at the situation where the keeper is trying to gather the ball (either on the ground or in the air) and a player is trying to kick or knock the ball out of the keeper's hands. It's especially important to protect the keeper while they're diving at the ball on the ground, to prevent them being kicked in the head (or body, or hands or whatever) but it's also important to protect them while they've got their arms extended above their head which leaves their whole body exposed and vulnerable.

In any event, whatever the reason why the provision was first introduced, I don't think there's any doubt that the actual wording of the law is fulfilled here.

The law says:


In this image, de Gea clearly has the ball between the hands and is clearly being challenged by van Dijk.

View attachment 4023
See my discussion with @JamesL on why taking those wording of the law too literally could lead to problems. But we do agree it's a foul.
 
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

This sentence (one line in the book) is stupid
The second statement completely obfuscates the first. It makes me think that the first statement is the ordinary definition of control, whereas the second statement leaves the door open for other situations of control (like holding the ball in one hand)
Complete nonsense

I believe the language about touching was added to be clear about the odd cases—there was a afamous case where the GK was holding the ball on top of one hand, and the attacker headed the ball out of his hand with no cal. In typical IFAB fashion, language was added rather than thinking through the totality of the language.
 
Back
Top