Question Number: 16062

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 7/18/2007

RE: Select, Competitive Adult

Mark of Saint Paul, MN USA asks...

In a recent game that I refereed, the goalie charged out to try to grab a cross. The goalie had to reach forward at about shoulder or head height to get his hands to the ball. An instant after the goalie's hands touched the ball, the goalie's forward momentum caused him to run into an opponent, the ball came loose, and another opponent was able to shoot it in. I allowed the goal, reasoning that it was the goalie's own momentum that caused the ball to become loose, not any action on the part of the opponent, who was stationary. Is this a reasonable interpretation? If so, what if the opponent moved slightly toward the goalie as the goalie came charging out, such that 90% of the reason the two crashed together was due to the goalie, but 10% due to the opponent's movement? Any good guidelines to keep in mind in that instant when a goalie is charging outward iin a crowd for a ball in the air, so as a ref I can correctly judge who might be guilty of a foul (for pushing, jumping into, or whatever) and when the forward should be penalized for trying to play the ball when in keeper's possession?

Answer provided by Referee Steve Montanino

Can muster member that a player is not allowed to prevent the goalkeeper from releasing the ball into play at any time, nor are they allowed to challenge the goalkeeper for possession of the ball once the goalkeeper has gained possession of it.

However, in this case it seems like the goalkeeper performed all of the actions while the attacker performs no action (at least if I'm reading your scenario correctly). If the attacker stood completely still and performed no action he would most likely be doubtful to me that they had prevented the goalkeeper for releasing the ball in play or that they had challenged the ball. So, without being there to see the play my best guess is that you made the correct call on the field at that time.

It is up to you to decide whether or not the attacker has broken law 12.

If the opponent made movements toward the goalkeeper after the keeper was in possession of the ball, it is likely that the attacker had hindered the goalkeeper's release of the ball to play.

This is only a judgment that you can make on the field of play.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Also, it's important to decide if the keeper ever had possession in the first place. Did he CATCH the ball or did it just touch his hands. This becomes important in the second pert of your question. If the keeper had possession and the defender moved so as to cause the keeper to lose possession, then this is a foul. As Ref Montanino points out, this is part of the job to decide these things in a split second. Thanks for the question

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

I like your reasoning as, I'm sure, the side scoring the goal did as well. I hope you didn't take too much crap from the other side. Well done Mark.

When there's a meeting of the minds the referee must judge if both minds were so involved with concentration for the ball that neither saw the other. It that's true then the meeting was an accident. Accidents are not foul play, though they sometimes result in trips to hospital. The only thing the referee need do is position himself where he has a good view of what transpires. 90/10 collisions are still accidents, given the concentration thing.

Mark, if you see the player 10% at fault concentrating solely on the other guy and the other is the keeper AND the ball comes out then something stinks. Yeah the keeper's motion caused the trading paint thing but it is doubtful the ball popped out without the help of the attacker. Here you'll be better served by pulling the attacker up for something, charging, pushing, deliberately handles the ball come to mind.

Make sure you gain good position on the field, when the ball is in the penalty area so are you, and from that position you should be able to see what happened. Then go with the "gut" feeling, that is usually right.

Regards,