Question Number: 29915

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 11/12/2015

RE: Rec Adult

Rico Luna of La Habra, CA Orange asks...

Ok, here it goes.

During my game, a attacker takes a shot to which the keeper saves. Everyone starts running towards the half way line as the keeper has been kicking the balls fairly far during the first half(due to the wind).
Well this time the wind is going against her. She runs towards the border of the penalty area and she must have miss kicked it somehow because she kicks it super high and with a spin. The wind's not working in her favor.
The ball leaves the penalty area by about 4 feet and then basically comes back to her, while this is happening her coach starts screaming for her not to catch the ball, to which she does.
I start reviewing this in my mind as this is all going down and I blow the whistle when she catches it and award a IFK inside the penalty area to the opposing team for a double touch.
This is the first and so far the only time that I've seen something like this happen. Have any of you ever seen this? And I believe my call was correct, any feedback?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Rico
Thanks for your question. As you know the Laws state that the goalkeeper may not touch the ball with her hands again when it has been released from her possession before it has either touched an opponent or played to her by a team mate in a way that allows her to legally touch the ball such as by a header, chest etc.
Now the law makers intention behind this law and the 6 second law was to prevent the goalkeeper from using the hands to withhold the ball from challenge when the ball was deliberately kicked or thrown by a teammate and to put the ball back into play without much delay.
That intention behind the law is what IFAB wanted the law to be but, for limitations posed by words in the LotG the law-makers were unable to cover every single eventuality including extreme foul weather. Unlike in law intention does not comes into play during interpretation of the law by referees as to the words that are used. So in outlier situations the LotG takes no account of that and in situations like this it is an IDFK offence for touches the ball again with her hands after she has released it from his possession and before it has touched another player. They are one off situations and when called probably help to deter other goalkeepers from committing the more likely actions of picking the ball up on a deliberate kick from a team mate.
So my sense of fairness tells me that as the goalkeeper had not intended to breach the law nor could it have been her intent to do this given she had clearly kicked the ball away and as such an award of an IDFK is harsh yet nonetheless technically an offence punished by an IDFK.
Now having said all that perhaps if the coach had said nothing with no appeals from the opponents I would be tempted to ignore the offence and allow play to continue. I recall an incident in a game on an extremely wet and windy day with a gale force wind. The ball was aimlessly kicked into the other half for a throw in. The opponents on the throw in had absolutely no interest in going deep into the half to contest the TI having been camped in their own half for most of the half. The ball was thrown to the goalkeeper who dribbled it for some 20 yards into his penalty area to take a long wind assisted punt. There was not a murmur of an offence when he picked the ball up from a sodden wet, cold bunch of players. I simply ignored it and play continued.
As another example I watched in our National Cup Final the goalkeeper of the winning team clearly parry the ball down requiring an opponent to close him down to pick the ball up. This happened near the end of extra time and it was done to waste a few seconds. Again I did not witness any player protest nor was it called and as he was swiftly closed down to pick the ball up it was either not seen, not seen as a parry or decided that it was trifling. It would have been an extremely harsh call and one that would have had the vast majority scratching their heads as to why there was an offence. The best decision was no call.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Rico,
the call was correct under the LOTG. The key point though, was it necessary for the good of the game? The discretionary powers of a referee can CHOOSE to set aside certain aspects of the LOTG when the punishment does not truly fit the crime or the reason that particular set of laws were placed upon the books. The word trifling is not an admittance there was no infraction it is more of that infraction really played no part in the match, no real benefit to one team, no disadvantage to the other.
The release of the ball and the MISTAKE of a poor kick into the wind is a FACT of play as such the keeper reacquiring the ball commits a technical infraction of recovering the ball using the hands a 2nd time. There would be no infraction if she had not used the hands but she did, so there is! The fact you have a coach screaming to bring ATTENTION to this very fact it is now a bit tougher to ignore it. My main concern on a techy mistake is, WAS IT UNFAIR TO THE OPPOSITION? If an opponent was challenging for that ball, if the 2nd use of the hands takes away a chance to score, then how to think the infraction no matter how techy is trifling is no longer plausible.
We do NOT reward mistakes! Go ahead award the INDFK .
IF NOT?
If the opposition are still down field waiting for the kick, get her to kick it out quickly cause that high bounce is cutting into her 6 seconds of possession lol
Cheers