Question Number: 15026

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 3/22/2007

RE: Select Under 13

Sean of Palos Verdes, CA USA asks...

The LOTG state that the keeper cannot handle the ball again after releasing it into play until it has been played by an opponent anywhere on the FOP or a teammate outside the PA. This includes parrying the ball.

Why then do referees allow the keeper to handle the ball after parrying it? Parry = controlled deflection that could have and should have been caught ITOOTR.

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Sean, I beg to differ with your assessment of Law 12, Indirect Free Kick Offence bullet #2. The Law states:

Quote

touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player

End Quote.

This wording was adopted on 1 July 1997. Previously the Law in question read:

(b) having released the ball into play before, during or after the four steps, he touches it again with his hands, before it has been touched or played by a player of the opposing team either inside or outside of the penalty area, or by a player of the same team outside the penalty area, subject to the overriding conditions of 5(c), or

End Quote.

International FA Board Decision 2 of Law 12 establishes this:

The goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball by touching it with any part of his hand or arms. Possession of the ball includes the goalkeeper deliberately parrying the ball, but does not include the circumstances where, in the opinion of the referee, the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper, for example after he has made a save.

Even though the Law changed in 1997 US Soccer, in their 2006 edition of Advice to Referees on the Laws of the Game still says this:

12.19 SECOND TOUCH BY THE GOALKEEPER

A goalkeeper who has taken hand control of the ball and then released it back into play may not handle the ball again until it has been played by an opponent anywhere on the field or by a teammate who is outside of the penalty area. This includes parrying the ball. Referees should note carefully Decision 2, which defines "control" and distinguishes this from an accidental rebound or a save.

Right we have a common footing in what the Law reads. Now to answer the question. If in the opinion of the referee [the seven most important words in the world] a goalkeeper could not have caught the ball then there is no offence. Why do some referees not intervene when we think we have seen the goalkeeper use his hands to give himself a better chance at collecting the ball? Answer: their opinion of what we all have seen differs from ours.

And/Or, and this is a very important AND/OR, they lack the courage to blow the whistle and/or do not know what the Law reads and make something up so they can get through the match and collect their game fee.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

What constitutes a parry is defined by the opinion of the referee. Unless we are very certain that it was a directed parry, as opposed to a save, we should err in favor of the keeper. If the ref is certain that the keeper parried the ball, she should call a technical foul against the keeper if he touches the ball a second time.

Regarding the USSF position of teammates inside or outside the penalty area, Ref Fleischer has noted the "old" wording in Law 12 which disappeared in the Great Condensation Rewrite of 1997. At that time, we were told that unless something was specifically noted as being changed in the Memorandum, we should consider it to be something that "everyone knows" and it still remains in effect, even though the words disappeared from the Laws. This is one reason USSF started publishing Advice to Referees - because they realized that not "everyone knew" everything about the game. Given that there was no point in any of the annual Memoranda noting that the principal had been changed, USSF included it in Advice. I suspect that this is something that will fade away as fewer and fewer people are in the "everyone knows" camp.

Answer provided by Referee Debbie Hoelscher

Parrying is another gray area opinion. If you think it's parrying it probably is. If you really have to convince yourself that it was parrying, then it probably is not and could perhaps be even trifling.