Hard one for the ref to spot though. The offside would been easierAt match speed and being biased I thought GOAL but seeing the replays there is plenty to scrub it off.
Can’t blame the striker for doing his job but we got lucky...
Hard one for the ref to spot though. The offside would been easierAt match speed and being biased I thought GOAL but seeing the replays there is plenty to scrub it off.
Can’t blame the striker for doing his job but we got lucky...
You have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.Text below. Impossible to tell from the still picture if the GK had control at the moment the attacker made contact with the ball or if was loose. Likely was a foul.
Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.I wasn't so much interested in the second SU goal, it's more the vauguarity of the Law which has got my attention
It just doesn't make grammatical sense to state something specifically (ball between the hand and any surface) to then negate the statement with a much less specific instructionYou have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.
Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.
No, it's not - those are the different scenarios which constitute control. They are not mutually exclusive.A 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) 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
Typically ambiguous statement from the LOTG
The section in red is negated by the statement in green
It makes perfect grammatical sense and the latter less specific instruction does not negate the previous more specific one. Saying that the keeper has the ball under control by touching it with any part of the hands or arms does not make saying that having the ball between the hands or between the hand and any surface constitutes control, untrue. You can say that the second statement makes the first one redundant, since it encompasses it, but it does not make it untrue or invalid.It just doesn't make grammatical sense to state something specifically (ball between the hand and any surface) to then negate the statement with a much less specific instruction
You have quoted an old version. There are some changes to that text.
Agreed. As it stands, if the keeper is tapping the ball away from goal and an opponent is trying to kick it, if the kicker and keeper make simultaneous contact with the ball then its an offence (keeper has control), however if the kicker makes contact moments before or after the keeper makes contact then its no offence (keeper has no control). Basically, the way I understand it, the keeper has control for a fraction of a second only.
No, it's not - those are the different scenarios which constitute control. They are not mutually exclusive.
Er... negate means nullify (wast of space), not invalid or untrue. I admire you as a historian, but as @socal lurker pointed out, the sentence is below par (for want of a better term). My first reaction when i read the book, is 'what the hell is this'? Fragmented and ambiguous, leaving us with a 'philosophy' and 'what the game expects' (as well as ignoring huge chunks of the bible, of which you are a disciple)No, it's not - those are the different scenarios which constitute control. They are not mutually exclusive.
It makes perfect grammatical sense and the latter less specific instruction does not negate the previous more specific one. Saying that the keeper has the ball under control by touching it with any part of the hands or arms does not make saying that having the ball between the hands or between the hand and any surface constitutes control, untrue. You can say that the second statement makes the first one redundant, since it encompasses it, but it does not make it untrue or invalid.