Question Number: 35642

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 8/7/2024

RE: Grassroots Under 15

Asaph Jagendorf of Arlington, Massachusetts USA asks...

I am interesting in learning your opinion on challenges on the keeper. In both the following clips from NCAA games an attacker is seen "boxing in" the keeper, affecting her ability to challenge for the ball. In the first clip the keeper even touches the ball, and is (according to the IFAB) considered in possession, so my assumption is that challenging her is an offense. Shouldn't both goals have been disallowed due to a foul on the keeper?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIhbq4cg19E
(about 3:08)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNGK9957fk
(about 3:40)

I also wanted to ask: should we as referees consider, when making such calls, whether the keeper had a chance to challenge for the ball when she was fouled? I often see comments like "the keeper didn't have a chance to get the ball, so why call a foul?"
Thank you for your time!

Answer provided by Referee Joe Manjone

Hi Asaph,

I would like to give you my opinion on the high school ruling concerning your question and whether impeding of the keeper took place.

Please note NFHS Rule 12-3-4 concerning impeding. Impeding is the deliberate act of a player that moves into the path of an opponent to block, distract, obstruct, or force a change in when the ball is not within playing distance. Being in the way of an opponent is not an offense and is different than moving into the way. The penalty for impeding is an indirect kick.

In the first video, it appears to me that the keeper was pushed. The goal should not have been scored and the keepers team given a direct kick. Because of the action around the keeper, this is a difficult penalty to see and call.

I do believe the offensive player deliberately moved into the way of the keeper in the second video and impeding should have been called.

I see your boys and girls high school soccer seasons starts on September 1. I hope you have a very successful high school season.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Asaph
Thanks for the question.
Lets deal with the easy parts.

There is no goalkeeper possession in either clip.
IFAB states that a goalkeeper is 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 from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
# holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
# bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air.
None of the three conditions is present and any contact by the hand is just a play on the ball with the hand. In the scheme of things I do not see obvious an foul.

Second part is that all players are entitled to their position on the field of play so as long as there is no movements that are judged an offence such as holding, impeding, pushing, charging etc there is nothing technically wrong with the tactic of *boxing in*. As long as the players do not move to commit an offence there is nothing wrong with being in a location. Indeed players are entitled to go for the ball and if the players so happen to be in the way as they attempt to play the ball there is no offence. Goalkeepers should try to not allow this to happen.

In the first clip while there is contact which could be called yet the action is not particularly obvious or glaring as a pushing foul. I think that a stronger goalkeeper play would not allow the contact to influence her play. Indeed the first movement looks like the goalkeeper uses an arm to push the attacker away which somewhat puts her out of position. She also seems to accept that there was no offence.

On the second one the goalkeeper believes that there was a offence on her and there is a whole group of players including attackers and defenders in the mix trying to make a play on the ball. The attacker that makes contact on the goalkeeper looks like she is making an attempt to get to the ball so there is no obvious action such as the use of arms to push or hold.
The goalkeeper gets out of position and her own team mates positioning sort of impedes her movement backwards as well. The Blue attacker does not use her arms yet seems to make a genuine attempt to get to the ball in a crowded mix. We might ask the question is there an offence here on any other player not the goalkeeper alone. There is certainly four players falling into the goal.
So to me there is also no obvious offence that is a must call offence such as those already mentioned.
If the same incident was moved to halfway is there an obvious stand out foul by any player rather than just coming togethers in attempts to play the ball.

As to calling these type of offences a referee has to look for obvious foul contact. It makes no difference whether the goalkeeper can play the ball or not. Indeed any offence may influence that ability to get to a position to play the ball.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

HI Asaph,
Who is to say how another referee might see these events in real time versus an arm chair rewind stop start review slow motion analysis. The key point would be to apply the SAME criteria to either team and look at it realistically was it more trifling or doubtful than clearly unfair or foul? A referee with integrity, sees what they see, from where they are, at a given moment of time! Decisions made on to the next one!

In the first video it was a wonderful inswing shot from the gifted corner kicker! The Keeper tracked the ball, PUSHED the nearby #15 attacker away with one free hand and then tried to jump up and deflect the ball over top or away. The keeper had no ball possession! I could not effectively determine with 100% clarity if the #15 attacker actually contacted the keeper before, during, or after as she leaped. Perhaps she tried to head it unsuccessfully but I saw no indication by the referee or the keeper in any argument that what contact, if it did occur, bothered either the keeper or the referee. It was terrible defending on the part of the ladies standing on the goal line who could in fact HAVE headed the ball out of danger but stood rooted to a spot instead of reacting to the ball.
A case could be made #15 backed into the keeper if indeed the referee held such an opinion the goal would be disallowed and a DFK out! But as pointed out there was a pile of players in the area blocking direct visuals. For me based primarily on the keeper's reaction I say the goal should stand!

In the second Video I also say the goal should stand! I noted the keeper had to back pedal as another great inswing to that far corner was creating havoc. The keeper was already off balance and reaching back the minimal contact in there was between her and the competing attacker was marginal. I saw no impeding just a reaction to the ball flight. I watched the eyes/head direction of the attacker they do not seem to be a fixated on the keeper's position to block her. I though possibly the free arm elbow might have leaned out. While the keeper seemed to believe there was some unfair movement or contact I noted no hesitation of the officials awarding the goal. If they believed it was unfair, if convinced that incident was a foul, viewed as interference of impeding or a push into the body then it gets called. Whether the keeper could or could not get to the ball get the ball, does not undo the foul, IF, it is there, as my colleague stated, the foul could affect the ability to get to a position to play the ball. In cases where goals are scored no one wants a cheap goal but neither an excuse to take one away. We do look hard at contact. We may not require the intent of any challenge, but we do look for clues that indicate disregard for the opposition or fair play to determine, was it a designed focal point to do so rather than just pursue a chance at goal? We must judge fouls on the actions taken not the thoughts those doing so have!
Cheers