penalty against the keeper incident

[JamesL]

I normally agree with you J on most things. However the OPs description leads me to believe the challenge was careless at best.

So on this occasion you're wrong. End of. I've decided.
Close the thread.

Put it down to YHTBT.

But I still stand by, from a mentoring point of view, until a referee has full knowledge and understanding of law, I say making decisions the game expects, in line with the laws, is the best way forward.

(And that is not me preaching law ignorance)

And like I said, there doesn't have to be contact.
If the GK challenge was careless enough for the attacker to have to leap/jump clear to avoid be "cleared out" (your words) then it's a careless challenge and is a penalty.

Sounds more like impeding progress of opponent without contact when you put it like that

 

[Kes]

Sounds more like impeding progress of opponent without contact when you put it like that

Bait me no further Sir, I implore you.

I concede.

Given up Of Somerset.

 

[ChasObserverRefDeveloper]

From the OP description let's give a penalty for jumping at an opponent.

 

[Southerner In The North]

This happened in PL a few years back to Hazard and was given as a Penalty the clip was actually used at a meeting on our promotion as good decision as this reads the same I’m going penalty and well done to the ref but would have to see it to be 100%

 

[socal lurker]

I read this chain as people having different pictures in their head as they answer. At one end you have a natural, clean challenge that the attacker jumps over. At the other end, you have the challenge where the attacker is going to have a beoke leg if he doesn’t leap to safety. Somewhere between those is the lime we would draw for a careless tackle challenge without contact that is a foul.

the reality is it is rare to have a foul on play like this without contact. But it’s possible.

 

[Peter Grove]

I'd just make a couple of points that stand
out to me from the discussion.

If the attacker isn’t getting that ball then 100% not a penalty unless the keeper is judged to have endangered the opponents safety or used excessive force.

Endangering an opponent or using excessive force are not the only ways to commit a foul - there's also careless and reckless to be considered. In any event, it makes no difference whether the player was going to reach ball or not - so long as the ball is in play when a potentially illegal action occurs, an offence is still possible.

looked at that and the only possible offence was "tackles or challenges" but i couldn't work out what this really meant.

"Tackles or challenges" is not an offence in and of itself - only if it's careless, reckless or uses excessive force.

Also, and in case it helps, the LotG Glossary gives definitions of both terms.

Tackle

A challenge for the ball with the foot (on the ground or in the air)

Challenge

An action when a player competes/contests with an opponent for the ball

Another possibility is "trips or attempts to trip."

How can a careless foul be given with no contact at all?

Well, if a challenge with no contact at all can be judged reckless and worthy of a yellow card (I'm sure we all remember the Wayne Rooney incident where this happened) then I'm pretty sure we can also have a careless challenge without any contact.

Anyway, based on the referee's quoted comment of, "if the attacker hadn't jumped the keeper would have cleared him out," it sounds entirely possible that this challenge by the keeper was reckless, although of course it's difficult (if not impossible) to say without having seen it.