Question Number: 31937

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/25/2017

RE: Rec Under 10

Les Shaeffer of Neosho, MO United States asks...

This question is a follow up to question 31935

I was the ref in this situation. In my judgement the contact was simultaneous. The offensive player had the original possession of the ball dribbling on a breakaway but ball was a little far. He went to shoot as the goalie dropped his hands down on the ball. The boots and cleats were down and there was no danger to the goalie. The ball rolled through the goalies legs and the offensive player moved around the goalie and took the shot, still no danger to the goalie. My decision at the time because contact was simultaneous, was the goalie never "trapped" the ball. If a goalie charges a ball on the foot of an offensive player, goes down to the feet and gets a hand or hands on the ball but the ball never stops rolling and stays on the offensive players foot would be a similar situation to this scenario. In past decisions Ive typically sided with the goalie (if none other than safety). But in this situation, I truly felt it was simultaneous contact and the ball never really stopped moving.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Les
Thanks for the clarification
As described you decided that there was no offence and it reads correct. At Underage it can be very difficult with poor skill levels and motor skills.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Les,
sounds like you thought through this and decided the keeper (a) did not have possession & (b) the opponent did not to endanger the keeper unfairly . As I mentioned the fact a hand reaches out is not possession just that the attacker needs to refrain from being overly aggressive, here it sounds as business as usual so well done!

It is true often we get situations where a striker will pounce on a loose ball that the keeper nearly has possession but is just swiping at it as it dangles about. Plus you have a firm grasp of the keeper in trying to TAKE the moving ball OFF the foot of an attacker is not possession but often a foul in the making if they are not careful.

Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Les,
If you are sure the keeper did not have control of the ball according to the laws of the game wording, then you are perfectly justified in your decision. Let me just point out though, that in making the decision about control of the ball, the laws make no reference to the matter of safety and so technically the fact that the keeper's safety wasn't endangered shouldn't affect the judgement of whether the keeper had control or not.

While I understand your point of view about the keeper not really having control (not possession, that word does not appear in the laws) of the ball, if the contact truly was simultaneous and at the time the attacker touched the ball, the keeper was also touching the ball with the hands then the keeper had control according to the wording of the laws and so for me, the challenge was illegal. Now, as I said earlier I tend to feel that contact is almost never truly simultaneous and if you were to judge that the player touched the ball a millisecond before the keeper did - or that the keeper's touch was so fleeting that by the time the opponent touched the ball, the keeper's hands were no longer touching the ball then there would be no offence.

For me, that is preferable to saying the touches were simultaneous since to do so (for me) leads you into a legal conundrum based on the letter of the law regarding keeper control of the ball. That is of course just my personal view and in your game you are entitled to make your own decision based on your best judgement of the situation.