Question Number: 17087

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/4/2007

RE: Classic (between rec+ and Select) Under 11

Bryan Davis of New Castle, IN USA asks...

In regards to a GK offense (Law 12)
-touches the ball again with his hands after it has been released from his possession and has not touched any other player - what constitutes "released from his possession"? I have seen GKs bounce the ball prior to dropping and punting and no call. What if the GK tosses/drops the ball to punt but catches before kicking? Is this an offense? What if the GK puts the ball down and then picks it up to punt? Maybe other scenarios, but I believe you get the idea.
Thanks,
Bryan

Answer provided by Referee Chuck Fleischer

Historically the keeper has been able to bounce the ball or throw it into the air without giving up posession. Laying the ball on the floor does release it into play.

Regards,

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

Bouncing the ball on the ground and throwing it up in the air have always been considered to be actione wherein the keeper KEEPS control. You probably didn't know this because, like me. you didn't grow up with soccer here in the US. There are a LOT of things not written in the Laws of the Game that are considered to be common knowledge. Be thankful. My State's High SChool Football rule book is something like 185 pages long.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

A keeper has ONLY 6 seconds with the use of his hands on the ball inside his own penalty area before he must put the ball back into play. No opponent can challenge for the ball within this 6 seconds of possession time! The keeper if he exceeds this 6 seconds of uncontested time using his hands holding or bouncing the ball, if the referee makes the call, this actually turns the ball possession over to the opposition by way of an INDFK, provided they did not PREVENT the keeper the opportunity to release the ball in ANY way shape or form!.

As noted the keeper can choose to bounce the ball (which no keeper in my opinion should do! It is simply a chance to mishandle the ball) and upon the punt out as the keeper tosses the ball in preparation to kick that *no challenge portion* of the 6 seconds is still in effect.

Where a small window of *what if* creeps in is within the 6 seconds of hand possession by the keeper (not truly an exact time as we generally are cautious in determining if ball in hand is fully controlled then we start the time frame and even then 6 seconds can become 7 even 8 at times. The spirit of the 4 indfk laws of illegal handling by the keeper, 6 seconds, second touch without any other player first making contact with the ball and direct throw in or deliberate kick of the ball to the keeper by a team mate were ALL designed to allow the game to flow and not use up playing time farting around!

In your scenario a keeper who does as you suggest has made a conscsious decision and released the ball into play thus a retouch with his hands on the ball since no otherplayer has had contact with that ball since he released it is a CLEAR 2nd touch violation and an INDFK offence if inside his own area.

I raise a specter of accidentally dropping the ball within 6 seconds or perhaps bobbling it and determining if control was actually maintained.

We could look at the age, skill, weather, if any opponent is nearby and whether the act of a slip or a funny bounce is trivial or doubtful in nature. An example is a keeper is trying to run up and punt the ball his hands are freezing in a cold wind driven sleet day bobbles the toss ,the ball bounces then he regain its and punts it out.
Technically we could say the ball was released and then touched a second time. We could be correct in indfk out as a mistake is not a reason not to apply the law.
But think to why is the law there?
What was the keeper actually trying to do?
We often allow a keeper to test the limit of the boundary with regards to a DFK for handles the ball deliberately when he carries the ball a w bit too far outside the boundary while still holding on to it. So could this indfk offence also be granted the same trivial or doubtful status?
I personally have no issue with not seeing it as a needed call but could not fault a referee seeing that a nearby opponent tries to capitalize on the error was prevented by the keeper's subsequent regrab of a mistake by awarding the INDFK against.

The beauty of this game is the laws were created in the spirit of fair play! We are specifically told not to look for accidental, trifling or doubtful reasons to apply those laws. Proper law application is recognizing the UNFAIRNESS of any act and setting the safety standards of what is best by the enforcement of those laws! WE do not ignore laws to apply our own; we recognize why the laws are there and how they serve to protect the game and its players!
Cheers